Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Walter Landry wrote:
These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications.
I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial
specifications.
What's the difference between full specification for A, which is a
On 3/30/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/27/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those ludicrous conclusions do not follow logically from the claim,
for such reasons as simple plane carriage not being a technical
measure under the relevant
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the
word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never
Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be
distributed, but that it is never Transparent.
I
On 3/28/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Worst case, you could read the open office source code to figure
out how [some of] these documents are stored.
These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications.
I see no reason to
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Walter Landry wrote:
These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications.
I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial
specifications.
What's the difference between full specification for A, which is a subset
of B and partial specification of
On 3/27/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the
context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been
specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license).
(I think this sub-thread is heading off on a tangent,
I've cut a bunch of material which seems to lead
nowhere significant. If I cut something important,
please feel free to correct me.)
On 3/27/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, I'll grant that the concept of copy and distribute is
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where
[with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could
be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is
widely
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where
[with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could
be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is
widely available,
Why does it matter whether the
On 3/26/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
If we're going to go into the exact quote game:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
[...]
I think
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
prohibited.
Only if
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the
context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been
specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license).
That's an open question, and necessarily jurisdiction
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
The subject of this sentence is you.
The subject of this sentence is not technical measures.
The object of use is technical measures to obstruct or control
the reading or
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
The
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/21/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows
the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come
with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your
example).
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
If we're going to go into the exact quote game:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
^^
[...]
I
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
prohibited.
Only if these copies are are made available to people whose
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited.
If free parallel distribution is guaranteed to be available,
relevant, and
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited.
Only if these copies are are
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We require that licenses don't discriminate against fields
of endeavor, but we have never considered the right to
distribute this free software in a non-free fashion a field of
endeavor.
I'm not convinced that using DRM/DRRT/technical measures is
necessarily a
On 3/23/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We require that licenses don't discriminate against fields
of endeavor, but we have never considered the right to
distribute this free software in a non-free fashion a field of
endeavor.
I'm not convinced that
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding
it in an executable, then making it available to users of a
multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled
(and only granting execute permissions) would constitute a
violation of the GFDL if
On 3/22/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding
it in an executable, then making it available to users of a
multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled
(and only granting execute permissions)
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have
written it oneself) and in I didn't find technical measures on
that page at
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
me to buy everyone in the world a computer? [...]
Only if you are arguing that the FDL clause's meaning
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that and
and or are synonymous and that I am insane. All false.
Adam McKenna writes:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use
one
copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies
on
multiple machines,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:29:24PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
me to buy everyone in the world a computer?
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:03:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that and
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...]
MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of technological measure and you
have not explained why you think that should be ignored.
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called
debian-legal would take one sentence from a license, read it without
considering the context or any of the the other text in the license,
and declare it non-free.
Do you think that this is
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:19:30AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Maybe a disgruntled friend/family member/employee tells him. Perhaps
some software vendor installed spyware or other monitoring software.
Who knows? That's not the kind of question we generally consider when
deciding whether a
On 21 Mar 2006 00:59:55 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is
governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does
copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work?
On 3/21/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case: if we interpret the FDL with the legal definition,
FDL'd works fail DFSG; if we interpret the FDL with your
bizarre literal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG. A null diff.
How?
Please spell out your reasoning here.
(1) I don't think my
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? [...]
We can ignore it for your chmod example, because [...]
I disagree, as previously stated.
I'm in disbelief that some seem willing to base licence
Adam McKenna writes:
And since you're stating yeah, I used them you've said they're not
for
archival purposes only ??? they're for use as well.
And in a court where I am not required to incriminate myself, how would he
prove it?
The Fifth Amendment's privilege
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Finally, I don't declare it non-free and have spoken against such
unhelpful ambiguous language in the past.
Then we are in agreement.
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
olive wrote:
Some might argue that a court will read the GFDL in a more litteral
sense. I do not think that because it seems very obvious that the
copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do
with your own copy. Of course I might be wrong
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/19/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it's someone else's GPL'd C code, then in your hypothetical example,
he's supposed provide source to his students should they ask for it.
That is my point.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:45:12 -0500 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
That's why I think the GR was, frankly, _stupid_. Crucially, I think
it's a violation of the trust that Debian's users have in us.
And that's the worst result of the GR outcome.
All that time spent in trying to detect issues and
On 3/21/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows
the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come
with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your
example).
I don't quite understand what you are
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:50:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the difference?
One has 'or' and the other has 'and'.
Your lack of attention to detail is troubling.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious with an obtuse, glib
Adam McKenna writes:
But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to
obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except
yourself.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. You are insisting
on a basically insane literal
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:14:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to
obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except
yourself.
I understand what you're trying to say, but
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Not really: if it said and it would be limited to certain cases.
The or case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
I don't agree, for reasons already mentioned.
It seems fairly obvious that other people may have access to a copy
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Not really: if it said and it would be limited to certain cases.
The or case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
I don't agree, for reasons already mentioned.
According to a quick browse of the
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Not really: if it said and it would be limited to certain cases.
The or case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
I don't agree, for
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
Since I've explained twice now that the use of and or or in that
sentence
does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately
misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me.
Adam McKenna writes:
As a legal excercise, maybe. Practically, it does not. Consider the
following two statements:
If you don't have permission to make personal copies from the law (say, you
live in a jurisdiction that does not have the concept of fair use), then you
have to obey the
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If the license said make and distribute, then that would exclude the
technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in
itself let you make personal copies without obeying the license.
Right, unless the copy was
Adam McKenna writes:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If the license said make and distribute, then that would exclude the
technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in
itself let you make personal copies without obeying the license.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:04:36PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
The license says You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute. It does not say ... control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or
Adam McKenna wrote:
That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one
copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on
multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more
than one copy at a time,
The plaintiff needs to
Adam McKenna wrote:
The exact text of the FDL is:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or
further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
For the purposes of this clause, there are two kinds of copies that can
be made.
1) Copies that are made, but
Adam McKenna wrote:
Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read
or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it
is not equivalent to having access.
If A depends on B then not doing/having B prevents A.
If you are not allowed to prevent A, then you
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and
distribute'.
An argument could be made that a person making a
copy available for other people to read under restricted
circumstances is not distributing that copy.
Note, however, that only
On 18 Mar 2006 22:46:24 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was rather obvious that I meant that in the sense of the
original scenario, and not in the general case.
I'm not sure what's not obvious in what I said.
You claim that the GFDL can not be taken to apply where
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have
written it oneself) and in I didn't find
On 3/19/06, Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of
freedom to merely distributable by Debian.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Your suggestion is a red herring.
Raul Miller writes:
Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is
governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does
copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work?
I disagree with your assertion that copyleft goes beyond what is
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:47:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read
or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it
is not equivalent to having access.
If A depends on B then not
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:28:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If I use rcp to copy a work from one machine to another (both which are
owned an exclusively used by me), this is making a copy but not
distributing.
If someone sniffs your connection and obtains a copy of the document, then
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use
one
copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies
on
multiple machines, someone would have to *prove*
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we
seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with
both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Better yet, why don't we recognize that the phrase technical measures
has a very specific meaning when we're talking about copyright
protection?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it's someone else's GPL'd C code, then in your hypothetical example,
he's supposed provide source to his students should they ask for it.
That is my point. The Word document is the source. That is the
format that he makes modifications in. This is not
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:36:14AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument
that
the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about
documents here.)
Well, US copyright law at least
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:25:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we
seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:36:14AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good
argument that the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember,
we're talking about documents
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:25:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Still, the person making the private copy is not distributing to anyone.
So
as long as he doesn't employ a technological measure to prevent *himself*
from making
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:50:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the difference?
One has 'or' and the other has 'and'.
Your lack of attention to detail is troubling.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious with an obtuse, glib comment. I can see
you're interested
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:44:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's
not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before.
How exactly is a brick wall not technological?
I think the
olive wrote:
Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML
file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies
(as you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is
not a generic text editor.
Actually, you can't edit an OpenOffice
Adam McKenna wrote:
Which kinds of non-distributional copying are not covered by fair use?
Making multiple copies for simultaneous use (e.g., installing on several
computers).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Saunders wrote:
and the fact that one shouldn't summarize threads
that are still active (I'll follow the 3 day rule [1] from now on).
May I suggest that for threads which are currently active, you
summarize them as something along the lines of:
[Name] brought up [issue, w/ issue
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we
seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with
both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't
simply be ignored
On 3/17/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
I can see some
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated
On 17 Mar 2006 14:29:18 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism.
On 3/17/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for
working
with .c source code, in the general case.
If he is using it
On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright
law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does
not apply.
Can you elaborate on where exactly copyright law no
Raul Miller writes:
On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright
law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does
not apply.
Can you elaborate on where
Adam McKenna wrote:
But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument that
the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about
documents here.)
Well, US copyright law at least gives the right to make a backup copy so
long as such new copy or
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of
freedom to merely distributable by Debian.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Your suggestion is a red herring. The GFDL makes no mention of Debian.
No red
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:39:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think that this very thread is an attempt to construct some
reasonably self-consistent interpretations that we can ask the
developers to decide between.
The developers have already
is not published by M$. (there might be an exeption for some unusual
very complex word documents not fully understandable by openoffice, but
from my experience this is only a very tiny proportion of word documents
using some special feature like macros, etc.).
Your last sentence shows that
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a
document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice
might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available
to the public: the subset of word fully understandable
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a
document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice
might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available
to the public: the subset of
I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's a legitimate
goal for a free software license to rule out proprietary formats such as
word documents. But I think it's quite clear that the GFDL does rule
out using word documents as source -- though the recent GR confuses this
On 3/17/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
try to have a court declaring the GPL illegal which would maybe make GPL
documents unredistribuable.
Uhmm, if you mean Wallace...
The GPL is an egregious and pernicious misuse of copyright that rises to
the level of an antitrust
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and
although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very
usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities.
Yes. And there's still some hope that it will happen, but
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to
do so, but the intent of this clause remains very clear.
This requirement does not apply when
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for working
with .c source code, in the general case.
If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the
preferred form for modification.
I don't know of any C
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not.
Things like
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but
if a marker pen can be classed as a
Raul Miller writes:
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or
Raul Miller writes:
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That situation isn't my main concern. File permissions clearly
obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
you make or distribute as well as meet the definition of a
technological measure.
Only when
On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue.
It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted above
is clearly not
Raul Miller writes:
On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue.
It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
