On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:01:35PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall.
The articles in question were circulated throughout the company so
they could be copied by employees. [Hence the interal
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall.
The articles in question were circulated throughout the company so
they could be copied by employees. [Hence the interal distribution...]
Sure, but it would have had to be substancial
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:47, Walter Landry wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless
they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done
neither, so you need not Cc: me.]
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Anthony is quite reasonable in
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:47, Walter Landry wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether it
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
(2)(b) specifically mention distribution?
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 16:26, Walter Landry wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless
they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done
neither, so you need not Cc: me.]
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:00:29PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The intent is actually to protect downstream people from your mistakes.
Please don't be a babysitter. :-/
Consider: person A at corporation X changes something in program P,
then quits, and then person B prepares P for
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:38:55PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I think this is fundamentally unsound, given Texaco. I gave an actual
Fair Use analysis in another message.
Pardon my language, but fuck Texaco. If your reading of the holdings of
the case are correct, I see no reason why this court
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:04:12PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:01:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I do. And so apparently does the RIAA, who feel it's an infringement of
copyright for people to put their own ripped audio onto sharable volumes
at work, at
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 06:59:18PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
I completely agree with that :-)
Recent comments on this list make it clear that 2a and 2c are intended to
apply to modifications you make regardless of whether you distribute. I'd
Well, I
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:54:15AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
In any case, the user of the software already has rights under fair use to
modify it, before even agreeing to the license.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00039.html
--
Glenn Maynard
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:28:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:35, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:43, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:08:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're ignoring 2 itself:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it, thus forming
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation of derivative works is one of the exclusive
rights of
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:28:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:35, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Distribution does not,
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation of
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I do not think this is going to happen, especially given AGPL's (2)(d).
Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
(2)(b) specifically
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:38:26PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail to
see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation of derivative works is one of the exclusive
rights of copyright holders. Please
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
(2)(b) specifically mention distribution?
Even if it's agreed that the current language restricts
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 09:12, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Wouldn't a requirement that if you make the software available for
use
to another party, you provide an offer of source to those users
make
much more sense, and avoid entanglements with the function of the
software?
That would be
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:40:58PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:28:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
Consider the case where I modify gs (since that's the example I used
earlier)
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:04, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail
to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not.
Because the preparation
[Just as a note, debian list policy is to _not_ Cc: individuals unless
they explicitly ask for it, or set appropriate MFT:'s. I have done
neither, so you need not Cc: me.]
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current
interpretation of Fair
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:01:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Because it's kept entirely within the entity that created it (it being the
derivative work based on gs).
I don't believe that would generally be counted as distribution. But IANAL
etc.
I do. And so apparently does
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:28:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
Consider the case where I modify gs (since that's the example I used
earlier)
and deploy it around my company.
How is deploying it not
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:12:43AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That would be silly, since you could always fall back to v2. The only
reason to fear v2 or later is that v3 could be too permissive, not too
restrictive.
No; if I release software under v2 or later, and a v3 with this
la, 08-03-2003 kello 00:09, David Turner kirjoitti:
It seems to me that there's a lot of stuff that you would want that
gateway to strip or abbreviate. You would want to cut all copyright
notices.
Assuming you would want to, how would you? There is no standard format
for copyright notices,
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 06:50:54PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
What exactly am I ignoring here? Nothing here seems to require that
I distribute modified copies.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.
What I was getting at is that 2 a-c doesn't apply to
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 06:50:54PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
What I was getting at is that 2 a-c doesn't apply to modifications you
make that you do not distribute.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
I completely agree with that :-)
Recent comments on this list make it clear that 2a
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:14:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
There's a similar case in the LGPL (finding it is left as an exercise
for the reader). In practical terms, I think the FSF pretends these
glitches don't exist, and that these aren't violations. And tries to
fix them for the next
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can we please, please, please start another thread to discuss this?!
done
that's enough reason for
me to stop releasing code under version 2 or later of the GNU GPL:
the persistent spectre that future versions will prohibit certain
sorts of functional
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:36:08PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote:
BUT -- (2)(c) ONLY takes effect if the user is distributing the
source to a modified program AND that program is intractive.
No!
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
users through a computer network and if, in the version you
received, any user interacting with the Program was given the
opportunity to request transmission to that user of the
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:08:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're ignoring 2 itself:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy
and distribute
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
received, any user interacting with the Program was given the
opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's
complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your
modified version of the Program or work based on the
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 21:06, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:26:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Here's a disastrous consequence. [...]
In this context (but not directly on-topic), I'd like to tell about
a little service we had running at Wapit, where I worked on
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
What exactly am I ignoring here? Nothing here seems to require that
I distribute modified copies.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.
What I was getting at is that 2 a-c doesn't apply to modifications you
make that you do not distribute.
Don Armstrong
--
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
You believe there is *no* ambiguity regarding the words reads commands
interactively when run and started running for [...] interactive use,
that this is always limited to cases where a single invocation of an
executable program presents an
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
conclude that
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:18:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I've read it.
In a nutshell, I don't know of any reasonable person that would define
object code as the output of tr a-z A-Z on a text file.
Nice to meet you. :) That is, I'm perfectly willing to accept that as
an
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have heard that the ASP phenomenon is one motivation for a GNU
GPL v3; I'd be very curious to know what changes the FSF is making
to specifically target the ASP problem.
*fsf hat on*
The Affero license (AGPL, http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html) should
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:27:54PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
As a result, the output of tr a-z A-Z may be either source code *or*
object code, *depending on the intent of the party making this change*.
else that the GPL doesn't permit distribution of. I'm happy to be
generous and say
Package: phpnuke
Version: n/a
Severity: grave
Tags: upstream, woody, sarge, sid
(John Goerzen is the person who originally noted this.)
/usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright contains the following:
##
#
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The major change is section (2)(d), which says, in short, If the
program has quine-like functionality to give you a link to the running
source code, you can't remove it.
I sincerely hope that the FSF is not contemplating to add such a
clause to the GPL.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:48:07AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
I am only talking about the instance of a web app which, though it
exists as a series of discrete scripts that communicate with the user
through a stateless HTTP connection, presents a unified interactive
session.
Sure, but why
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:44:54PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
Consider the case where I modify gs (since that's the example I used earlier)
and deploy it
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, note that a lot of other GPL software (including all GNU text/code
processing tools I'm familiar with) specifically exempts the output from
being regarded as a derivative work of the processing tool. For bison,
gcc and the like, there may be
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also,
I think it's about time we made up our minds one way or the other about
the GNU FDL. The latter is an issue that we need to resolve internally
first.
I thought Debian had decided that invariant sections, as they are now,
are definitively
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:35:19PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Similarly, I would argue that, if you derive benefit from using the
PHP-Nuke engine to assemble your homepage into its final form for
presentation, it is not *wholly* original.[1] Even if it is no longer a
derivative work of the
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:48:07AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
Sure, but why limit it to web apps? Almost all apps communicate with the
user in some manner. How is delivering a blob of HTML to a renderer in
response to a query any different from delivering a blob of text to a
logfile
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:50:49PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm not sure you've answered the question I meant to ask. Let me try to
rephrase: if debian-legal finds that such a requirement from upstream is a
legitimate clarification of the GPL (rather than an additional
restriction
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
of these two cases would be (2)(c) cases. Recall that (2)(c) says,
...when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary
way, to print or display an announcement
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:36:18PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
themselves, are already farfetched in this circumstance.
(2)(c) concerns the act of modification.
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
of these two cases would be (2)(c) cases. Recall that (2)(c) says,
...when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:55, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in
this thread).
I think it's pretty clear that all three subsections of section 2 takes no
effect unless distribution has occured.
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:26, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By that definition, Apache is interactive, as is the Linux kernel.
Sure, and I don't see a problem considering them interactive. Now, I
guess you could say grep responds to SIGKILL being
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 23:43, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:13:18PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Then perhaps we have a license bug here. The text of 2(c) *only*
provides an exemption if the Program itself is interactive but does not
normally print such an announcement.
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:35, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in
this thread).
I think it's pretty clear that all three subsections of section 2 takes no
effect unless
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
5. There's an exception.
6. The exception doesn't apply, because the Program itself (the GPL'd
library) isn't itself interactive.
7. Just about every user of GNU readline is violating the GPL.
The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive, so the
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:32:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive, so the exception *does*
apply.
Like I mentioned, that was just a poor example; pick any clearly
uninteractive GPL-licensed library.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
Since I think something
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:19, John Goerzen wrote:
BUT -- (2)(c) ONLY takes effect if the user is distributing the
source to a modified program AND that program is intractive.
No! (2)(c) doesn't contain the first part of that -- it doesn't
require
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 18:32, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
5. There's an exception.
6. The exception doesn't apply, because the Program itself (the GPL'd
library) isn't itself interactive.
7. Just about every user of GNU readline is violating
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:32:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL'd library (readline) *is* interactive, so the exception *does*
apply.
Like I mentioned, that was just a poor example; pick any clearly
uninteractive GPL-licensed library.
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:39, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I
would be happy for it to brew some more
Can we please, please, please start another thread to discuss this?!
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 09:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have heard that the ASP phenomenon is one motivation for a GNU
GPL v3; I'd be very curious to know what changes the FSF is
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Does anyone believe the GPL unambiguously *dis*allows that
interpretation?
I do. 2c applies to running of the program
Please re-read (2)(c). It restricts the *modification* of the program.
2c requires that, when modifying the program, you
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to
request transmission to that user of the
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 11:39, Henning Makholm wrote:
I sincerely hope that the FSF is not contemplating to add such a
clause to the GPL.
Why don't you read the actual (2)(d),
That's what I did.
and propose changes:
Pipe it through sed /./d?
--
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're ignoring 2 itself:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy
and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of
Section 1 above,
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 09:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that's enough reason for
me to stop releasing code under version 2 or later of the GNU GPL:
the persistent spectre that future versions will prohibit certain
sorts of functional modifications.
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Which is ambiguous in itself.
Duly noted.
I've been conviently ignoring the ambiguity (for now). Suffice it to
say that between the abiguity and USC Title 17 Section 107 [not to
mention the impraticality of finding someone who modifies without
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:26:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Here's a disastrous consequence. [...]
In this context (but not directly on-topic), I'd like to tell about
a little service we had running at Wapit, where I worked on Kannel[1].
It was a limited facility for web browsing via
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:47:26AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'd really rather punt on this, as a real court might, and not rule on
this until an issue comes before us where it is the only thing standing
between a package and Debian main. (I think the legal slang for this
is, the issue
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
However, PHPNuke's interpretation is broader: it insists that the blurb be
in the footer of each page, not just the main page. Even if we can can't
determine the above, can we agree that it's not a reasonable interpretation
to
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:55:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This simple approach appeals to me, not least because it makes the GNU
GPL more easily applicable to things that aren't software:
source form = preferred form for modification of the Work
object form = any other form
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:20, John Goerzen wrote:
There is a clear and distinct difference between the grep in ls | grep
'^some.regexp$' | xargs rm, and PHPNuke!
Where is the difference between your example ls/grep/xargs and my example
PHPNuke pipeline?
PHPNuke is interactive. Grep
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:31:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I think it boils down to this. When I run a KDE app, I think it's
reasonable to ensure that the About box maintains a reference to the
original author for
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm not sure where we could go from there; asking them to change it to only
the main page is pointless if that's 1: still ambiguous and/or 2: still of
questionable
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept
Can you give a reference so I can find out what the Affero bit is?
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Now THERE'S a title I'd like to have :-)
-- John
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:28:02PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:33:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Just FYI, I share your feelings. I think 2c is the worst wart on the
GNU GPL.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, I strongly suspect the FSF is interested in having more
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In a nutshell, I don't know of any reasonable person that would define
object code as the output of tr a-z A-Z on a text file.
Nice to meet you. :) That is, I'm perfectly willing to accept that as
an example of object code
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
conclude that our interpretation of 2 as a whole is desirable, and likely
to be the
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:47PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 14:20, John Goerzen wrote:
There is a clear and distinct difference between the grep in ls | grep
'^some.regexp$' | xargs rm, and PHPNuke!
Where is the difference between your example ls/grep/xargs and
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:26:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as object form
as any form other than
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
About boxes are fine, but I am not sure it is wise to permit a Free
Software license to forbid people from removing them. It makes perfect
sense to remove an
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version
of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to
conclude that
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
About boxes are fine, but I am not sure it is wise to permit a Free
Software license to forbid people
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
I have a hard time deciding what to think here. On one hand, it is
not, in the present case,
Scripsit Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let us consider the output of tr a-z A-Z as _not_ source code
nor object code. This implies that it is not exempted by section 2, and
also not exempted by section 3. So it's not a particularly useful
definition since you would be bound by pure
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:26:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:31:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Can you remind me of the advantages of NOT interpreting as object form
as any form other than
Scripsit Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove
the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means
that you can remove that entire chunk of code anyway. Someone uses your
code and prepares a derivative work that is
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
Well I should say, this case is independant of the GPL due to the
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove
the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means
that you can remove that
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
of the GPL?
I have a hard time
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:52:33PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:06:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
On one hand, it is not, in the present case, an orneous requirement.
[...]
I think it is an orneous requirement.
Do I make you 'orny, baby? Do I?
Guys, I think the
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:08:28PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
programming A term describing a program whose input and
output are interleaved, like a conversation, allowing the
user's input to depend on earlier output from the same run.
In each run, PHPNuke receives a single
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 20:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:53:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
This, I simply don't think I can agree with. Perhaps a clearer example
would be irc.worldforge.org. It lives on a computer owned and operated
by Bob. But Bob basically never
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
