Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To the best of my knowledge, TeX is explicitly in the public domain,
But the only source we have for that seems to be the article by Knuth
that you cite (I have also searched the web without getting anywhere
else):
Some searching around led to an
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Later in the file, it is written:
,
| If this program is changed, the resulting system should not be called
| `\TeX'; the official name `\TeX' by itself is reserved
| for software systems that are fully compatible with each other.
| A special
Frank Küster wrote:
Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it
so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
conclusive evidence...
Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, click on SEARCH trademarks,
On 1/21/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster wrote:
Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it
so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
conclusive evidence...
Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did we ever find concrete evidence that TeX comes with a license to
create modified versions under different names? The copyright notice
at the top of tex.web presents only the patch option, and
/usr/share/doc/tetex-bin/copyright is not of much help.
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
compatible with itself
The GPL is incompatible with itself.
quote***
A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:33:41PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander [...]
Alexander compatible with itself
Alexander
Alexander The GPL is incompatible with itself.
Alexander
On 1/19/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A troll hunter.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
compatible with itself
The GPL is incompatible with itself. [ ... Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01 ...]
Beside that,
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3.html?page=2
Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no top-posting. That means you.)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see
Hands Off Yorick!
On 1/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So here it is:
7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
receive copies of the work.
I like this, together with Arnoud's suggestions. But Walter is right;
the
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:46:52PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A billy goat gruff, if I remember my mythology correctly.
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can
Matthew Garrett:
Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you
with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't
looks astonishingly bad?
Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes
that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're
not?
You're asking me to repeat the entire
Michio Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.)
Nngh.
Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for
changing views at the drop of a hat. For example,
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
affected.
Did we ever find concrete
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting the
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative
works, it causes endless trouble.
That
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
receive copies of the work.
This sounds a lot better. I would suggest using work based on the
Program to re-use that
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:18:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
But in that case, you might find it more fruitful to discuss this clause
with the FSF itself rather than with debian-legal.
Well, I'm not discussing these things here to try to get the weight of this
would make Debian call the
On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...}
What do other people think of this?
I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary
contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to
deem now compatible.
The OSI approval (I just pray that
Glenn Maynard wrote:
No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse. The only
counterarguments I've ever seen are:
- code reuse isn't important (often thinly veiled as eg. you don't
really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it), and
- if you really want to reuse
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:14:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Have you heard argument three?
A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically
prohibits code reuse in the same way. This sucks, but we consider it Free
(while discouraging it). Patch clauses
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think you're the third person to say something along those lines: be
thankful, it could be a lot worse. It's still endorsing an extremely
onerous class of restriction, implying that it's acceptable, helpful,
and that the classes of application screwed over by it is
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:10:38PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
All these objections from Debian folks, and no one has yet noticed the
irony that the type of clause in question (the Affero language) has been
championed by the man who wrote the DFSG, Bruce Perens. Bruce repeatedly
called the ability
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a wide difference. The GPLv3 is explicitly making a statement:
these restrictions are acceptable. Permissive licenses merely say I
don't care. It implies that the FSF considers such restrictions free,
and either hasn't considered, or doesn't
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go;
patch clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...)
Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
insufficiently
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:37:15AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The fact that they claim the Affero license is free didn't suggest that
to you already?
Personally, I stopped paying attention to what they claim is free and
non-free when they called the GFDL free. I just expect people to go
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
clauses. There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
of that don't want my pet package declared non-free agenda going on,
and it seems like an obviously
Glenn Maynard writes:
(On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch
clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...)
Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
insufficiently complicated.
If I'm reusing a function from one project
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure. I
can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
code I'm reusing. That's hardly reasonable. It also prohibits me from
using public
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure. I
can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
code I'm reusing. That's hardly reasonable. It also
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:40:55PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its
own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or
subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license.
So you're
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
clauses. There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
of that don't want my pet package declared non-free agenda going on,
and it seems like an
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
deciding that they're
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you
with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't
looks astonishingly bad?
So the real reason not
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because saying We used to think that this sort of license provided you
with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided
40 matches
Mail list logo
