page)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
proper DJB sycophants.)
steveg
[1] IANAL, yadda yadda yadda
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
to clarify, because right
now we don't know what he wants. If you'd like help writing this up, I'm
sure d-l would be glad to help.
Regards,
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over
maintaining such a program, I'd want
to know if I needed a new permission to distribute new version, or if I
could get blanket permision along the lines of debian may distribute
modified versions of ROOT.
But I'm not.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making
consensus on that point.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
of the Debian developers, but almost certainly not all.
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
~20 years ago.
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
, consistent.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
to Windows and Word. All I can offer is that I was both
young and misguided at the time. I'm no longer young...
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen
that.
The target file system is the Debian archive. One of the conventions
of the Debian archive is that original tarballs are renamed to include
.orig. What's the problem? :-)
If they wanna play letter, not the spirit games, we can too.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims
On 27-Nov-01, 14:53 (CST), Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:59:57PM +, M. Drew Streib wrote:
The intent, although IMO abusable, is to give the author a chance to make
a statement, but continue to allow derivative works of all the actual
relevant
that it's better to have a quantitative measure of
how much non-modifiable stuff we can have. I think that leads to more
problems than it solves (or alternatively, that it doesn't solve the
real problem).
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to get permission, we probably can't distribute it all,
unless the Debian diff.gz does not touch the original jove source code
at all.
Steve
[1] If it is, the program still has to go into non-free.
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
agree that it not as clear as it could be, this seems to be a
fairly common way of expressing the idea that no payment needs to be
made to the copyright holder, and we have previously accepted licenses
with identical wording and DFSG free.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 29-Aug-01, 23:08 (CDT), John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The funny part is the selfsame stuff that makes GIF viewers non-free is
blithely in gzip. Ah well, consistency has never been a hallmark of
patents WRT non-free.
You're confused. There are plenty of GIF viewers in us/main. The
Heavily snipped, but Edmund missed to key words.
On 25-Aug-01, 03:01 (CDT), Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When I understand the stuff on http://cdimages.debian.org
correctly, Debian suggests to sell also incomplete sets of the
for a patent than a copyright. I
can copyright a painting (or rather, copyright applies to paintings,
photography, and other visual works). Has there been a published
decision that copyright doesn't apply to bitmap font?
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent
On 20-Aug-01, 12:12 (CDT), Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:34:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 18-Aug-01, 22:46 (CDT), Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bitmapped fonts are not copyrightable in the United States.
Hinted fonts, because
regardless of license. What we (in the US, anyway) object
to is the paid enactment of laws designed to protect the financial
interests of large corporations, which is what the DMCA is all about.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe
by this particular license.
Steve
PS John Galt: I'm sure your editor has a 'cut' or 'delete' function...if
you need help finding it, let me know. :-)
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
, because the answer is so obvious,
and I don't understand why the proponents of the GPL steals my code
can't (won't?) see it.)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
distribution. Unless it's in
an interpeted language like Perl or Python, of course.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
. :-)
On the other hand, if we can't modify, what purpose is served
by us distributing it at all? It's available from the Intel
website, right? It's just a file that gets installed by the loader,
right? There's no integration issue.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC
that are specifically allowed by
copyright law, such as reverse-engineering (in some countries).
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
and all their mirrors, etc.
I don't think there's currently anything in non-free that can't be
*distributed* freely. If there is, I hope the person who put it there
has read the license carefully and understood all the ramifications.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me
On 19-May-01, 23:03 (CDT), John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and
thus does not stay true to our ideals.
It can be worded that Debian disagrees strongly with the idea of patented
objection to the idea,
even assuming it passes muster with lawyers?
Absolutely.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
it.
Steve
[1] I'm not sure I'd argue that all software (actually algorithm)
patents are inherently invalid[2], just that the US Patent Office isn't
competent to judge unobvious or prior-art.
[2] Unlike business-process patents, which are completely bogus.
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please
://www.appwatch.com/license/ncftp-3.0.2.txt
This is listed on the FSF page as free and GPL compatible.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
.
That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified
version, but that people who recieve it from us do not, unless they too
ask permission (We do expect and appreciate...). Non-free. If she had
written just We appreciate... I'd be comfortable putting it in free.
Steve
--
Steve
On 21-Aug-00, 14:59 (CDT), Drew Parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
viewmol supplies source which compiles (and also an rpm, which segfaulted
under potato). The copyright statement inside their documentation indicates
that Permission to use, copy, and distribute VIEWMOL in its entirety, for
On 02-Aug-00, 07:22 (CDT), Rene Mayrhofer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Do I have the possibility to say use it in any way, do with the
content what you want but do not sell CD-ROMs produced with the
official Gibraltar ISO-images ?
The problem [1] with the GPL is that it makes it very difficult to
On 23-May-00, 00:56 (CDT), Mike Bilow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would be my position: once you edit in the debian subdirectory, you
are modifying the source tree. I don't see any way of satisfying the
license other than by distributing source patches and letting the user
build, as is
On 21-May-00, 01:51 (CDT), Lindsay Haisley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are several levels of 'ownership' here. What are called 'mechanical'
rights - the rights to the actual recorded sound are different from the
rights to the arrangement, lyrics and music. I can see where record
On 19-May-00, 15:27 (CDT), Paul Serice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I wake up one day to learn that GPL isn't what I thought it was.
Well, its social reach extended further than I thought it did. It seems
to be about making sure that the community immediately has access to the
source code
On 18-May-00, 04:30 (CDT), Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
...
plugger is in contrib for a reason. ns-plugin-sdk can't be distributed. I
have a local deb of it, but I can't send it anywhere, as it has no copyright
at all, and netscape has
On 17-May-00, 06:53 (CDT), Jimmy O'Regan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
) So I can loan out my CDs up to about 1283 times each, making the worst
) case assumption that each loanee makes a copy. (Based on a list price
) of $12.99, and an assumption (aka
On 15-May-00, 05:11 (CDT), Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Mike Bilow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here.
I think there's a troll here.
Huh? Mike's note was a very well-written explanation (much better than
my attempts) of why Paul's
On 15-May-00, 11:47 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:56:44AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
as Jutta pointed out
Who?
You, of course. Sorry, I didn't go back and look while I was composing,
and just remembered the Ju and the two tts. I
On 14-May-00, 00:08 (CDT), Paul Serice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. You get the right (not the duty) to let people get copies from
you.
So, if I make modifications to the source, you're saying that I have
the right to redistribute and no duty to do so?
Absolutely. The GPL rule is that
On 14-May-00, 03:05 (CDT), Paul Serice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absolutely. The GPL rule is that *if* you want to distribute your
modifications, you must make the source available. If you only modify
for personal use, you are under no obligation to distribute.
After the fact, I'm reading
On 14-May-00, 14:22 (CDT), Paul Serice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure it is the common understanding, because I've read that
interpetation in several places; It's not original with me.
I believe you, and I hope your right . . . but
There's a ongoing discussion in the AskSlashdot
the right to
redistribute for a package to be in non-free? If not, how do we get away
with mirroring non-free?
Steve
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
to such a distribution are probably
low. The whole free software development model is based on have lots of
people use, evaluate, and fix programs.
--
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license,
which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the
version number.
Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those
two 0.6.1
On 14-Jun-99, 15:14 (CDT), Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/*
* Doing my best to get this moved to -legal
*/
posted to -legal only --sg :-)
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
| Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows,
| or by mutual
On 12-Jun-99, 09:18 (CDT), John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Greenland writes:
Is 'system (dpkg -command arg);' an editorial elaboration?
No. It's a reference (a concept that predates software). A work that
refers to another work is not a derivative of that other work
On 10-Jun-99, 21:39 (CDT), Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Maury Markowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If YoyoDyne wants to put a GUI wrapper around the dpkg, what then?
Does making a GUI wrapper for the product become a case of
incorporating it into a propietary system?
A non-GPL
On 30-Jan-99, 19:52 (GMT), Darren Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought I saw a conversation somewhere that said saying a license is
in the public domain isn't good enough. What is Debian's position on
this WRT the DFSG?
I've always understood that placing a (formerly/potentially)
49 matches
Mail list logo
