Re: Unidentified subject!

2006-01-28 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote: > What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software > license? The patent grant is tighter than I'd like; the way I understand it, you get a copyright license for modified works, but not a patent grant. So if there is

Unidentified subject!

2006-01-28 Thread Luca Brivio
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software license? https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf (sorry for the document format). Note that in order to download Bio-SPICE from its website it's necessary to register oneself. -- Luca Brivio Web:

Unidentified subject!

2005-07-15 Thread 欢迎您登陆中关村二手网
你好 我是中关村二手网 http://www.pc26.com 希望大家到我们的网站去看看,免费注册会员,然后再免费把你的产品信息发布上来,让我们广大的会员能看到你的信息,方便和你联系! 另外我们的网站免费注册会员的期限就要到了,如果你还没有免费注册,请尽快登陆注册。机会不容错过!千万的商机在向你招手! 我们的网站有很多的求购信息!希望你能联系以下,帮你找到商机! 网络店铺,帮助您生意更加兴隆。 如果这封邮件打扰到您!请您给予谅解,删除即可。 有什么问题和我们联系我的电话010-82853069-802 斯

Unidentified subject!

2005-07-15 Thread 合作
尊敬的财务负责人: 您好! 因我公司享有国家优惠政策,纳税率底于一般纳税公司。为了贵公司的利益得到提高,更能方便、 快捷的开到税务发票,现长期对外代开发票,贵公司如有下列情况需要可一一为您效劳: 一、 公司做帐、进、出口差额的; 二、 客户压低货价、利润微薄的; 三、 采购时需要正式票据报销的; 四、 其它涉税项目的。 我们以金额大小收费: 一、 商品销售发票(1%--2%) 二、 增殖税专用发票(4%--7%) 三、 运输、广告、其它服务(1%--2%) 四、 海关缴

Unidentified subject!

2004-07-20 Thread D. Starner
> Also, in any sane legal > system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the licence, > even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve what they > get. In any sane legal system, the judge is going to find out what's going on from both sides before he even co

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-10-02 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 05:22:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free > software. > > I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the > GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger. > > When the GN

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-10-01 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free > software. > > I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the > GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger. > > When the GNU Project started, t

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-10-01 Thread Richard Stallman
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free software. I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger. When the GNU Project started, there was no other organized effort to make software free. W

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-30 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I didn't say that. I said we built the community, which we did by > pushing for free software when nobody else did. Of course, many > others have contributed since then. I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free software.

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-30 Thread Richard Stallman
> The Free Software Foundation built the free software community, > years before Debian was started, This is at least much of a "nasty cheap shot" as what I said. And you've done it before. It is not a "shot" at all. I was defending the FSF from an accusation, not attacking Debi

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-29 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the > object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the > Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different? > > That is a cheap shot, because it

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-29 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain. > > I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one) > which addresses that issue. > > 2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sou

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-28 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be > free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free > software license I use. I will use any license. > > I want to incorporate parts of a GFDL'd m

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-26 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: We reject the GFDL because it is not merely incomptability of licenses. Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free software license I use. I will use any license. I want

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-26 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain. > > I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one) > which addresses that issue. By saying "everything has ambiguous and uncertain borders". But hey! We

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-26 Thread Richard Stallman
Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different? That is a cheap shot, because it reflects only your decision to be nasty. I could make

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-26 Thread Richard Stallman
1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain. I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one) which addresses that issue. 2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources, As I explained, this desire is usually impossible d

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-24 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the > object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the > Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different? > > That is a cheap shot, because it

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-24 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation > licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you > would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses). I would rather > ask why they should be the same, since

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 18:33, Richard Stallman wrote: > "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering > more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent > copy along with each Opaque copy," could indeed be read differently > than the GP

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program > and documentation, as far as I can tell. > > Hello is an example program. Yes... and thus both program and documentation. > It is difficult > to deal with s

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 12:34:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source. It depends on the program, but if you have the source, you do not feel that you need to the

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Steve Dobson
Mathieu On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Steve Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > The Social Contract is about producing the "Debian system" and other > > works that provide a useful platform for our users. The Operating > > System is just part of that work.

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 18:10:18 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0002 Interesting. Did anyone spot that it seems not to meet DFSG? A casual search with vote;logo;dfsg of vote/legal/devel/user/project/policy returns no matches for the quarter con

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Richard Stallman
None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program and documentation, as far as I can tell. Hello is an example program. It is difficult to deal with such grey areas and I assume that it requires a case-by-case review. I have never found it difficult.

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:10:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition) > >you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of > >Debian is to provide an

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Matthew Garrett
Mathieu Roy wrote: >Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand >how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source. We consider even trivial software such as "Hello world" to be worthy of Freeness, even though in this case you have everything necessary to u

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 08:30, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own > logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at > all to have a complete free operating system. > If Debian already recognize that non-program software can

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a > > political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that > > essay, I just start writing my own essay > > Som

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that essay, I just start writing my own essay Some people feel the same about software in general. It is

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
Steve Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Mathieu > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > > And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition) > > you can have on computer is part of the Operating Sys

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition) you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it? See http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Steve Dobson
Mathieu On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition) > you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of > Debian is to provide an Operating System

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the > > word. > > Not at all. It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can > tell. It seems to be a neolog

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-21 Thread Nathanael Nerode
RMS wrote: >The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue >here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision. Out of curiosity, where *is* it the issue? As a GNU Project contributor who disapproves of GFDL Invariant Sections, and knowing quite a few other GNU P

Why documentation and programs should be treated alike (was Re: Unidentified subject!)

2003-09-21 Thread Nathanael Nerode
RMS wote: >For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use "software" >in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs >only. This is not what I believe to be the standard meaning or the historically correct meaning, but thanks for avoiding confusion. >The main dif

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-21 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the word. Not at all. It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can tell. It seems to be a neologism created to cover all things stored in the comp

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-21 Thread Steve Dobson
RMS On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 06:33:41PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a > computer* are software. > > Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the > word. I don't think that is the best way to interpret th

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-21 Thread Richard Stallman
>> I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution >> under section 3, do you still hold that position? > > GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, for example, > distributes its GPL'd software by offering the source on the same > medium.

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-21 Thread Richard Stallman
Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a computer* are software. Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the word. I don't think that is the best way to interpret the DFSG, because it leads to unnecessary inflexibility. I do not try to tell the

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-21 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 01:14 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution under section 3, do you still hold that position? GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, fo

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-20 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Richard Stallman wrote: Yes. "Debian will remain 100% free software". That's the first line of the Debian Social Contract. This means that everything in Debian must be free *software*. That is one possible interpretation, but since it is based on asserting that manuals, essays,

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-20 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> >> I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of >> DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted. > > Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant... >

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-19 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted. Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant... I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only dis

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-19 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue > > here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision. > > You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does. > > I have said nothing of the

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-19 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
"Brian W. Carver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anthony DeRobertis writes: >> I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out >> that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a >> violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in sourc

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-19 Thread Brian W. Carver
Anthony DeRobertis writes: I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in source code as well as compiled form'." That's what I'd like

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-19 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 12:05, Richard Stallman wrote: > That is why I recently asked to hear from Debian developers whether > they are still making up their minds about the matter and whether they > are interested in what I have to say about it. If this is generally > not the case, I will stop dis

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-19 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > >> Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to >> violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code >> as well as compiled form". > >

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-19 Thread Walter Landry
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote: > > > The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as > > source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not > > "transparent". > > I understand that; in fact, I was one of

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote: > The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as > source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not > "transparent". I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out that problem. But that's no

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Walter Landry
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > > Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to > > violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code > > as well as compiled form"

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Jeremy Hankins
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen > wrote: >> Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to >> violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source >> code as well as compiled form". > >

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code as well as compiled form". Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate?

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The argument for that is that there are many > > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can > > be interpreted to accept it. > > The arguments appear to be: > > 1) There are many GFDL manuals. > 2) Th

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread D. Starner
> The arguments appear to be: > >1) There are many GFDL manuals. >2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include. > That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is > crucial. But they are an irrelevant two parts. If Joe Blow writes a license for his program

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Mike Hommey
On Thursday 18 September 2003 13:05, Richard Stallman wrote: > I am not interested in beating a dead horse. You have been for at least a whole week. Please stop that. Thanks. Mike

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Richard Stallman
I couldn't believe that RMS actually wrote that when I read it. You shouldn't have believed I actually wrote that, because he misunderstood what I wrote. He omitted a crucial part of the argument, so that what remained was absurd; then he went on at length pointing out just how absurd it was.

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Richard Stallman
The argument for that is that there are many > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can > be interpreted to accept it. The arguments appear to be: 1) There are many GFDL manuals. 2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include. That's two

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Richard Stallman
> You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would > be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of > manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the > way that single functions of Lisp are. > > R

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread Richard Stallman
> The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue > here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision. You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does. I have said nothing of the kind. The Debian developers decide what Debian does, and

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-18 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-17 20:34:13 +0100 Brian W. Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's good to hear. Of course another related concern is forward-looking. It is a terrible waste of scare resources to have Debian create a DFSG-free manual every time a GFDL-licensed manual is produced for some new piec

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-17 Thread Brian W. Carver
Branden Robinson writes: Fortunately, it is not as much work as we might fear. At least four GNU Manuals that have recently had Invariant Sections added to them and were relicensed under the GNU FDL were DFSG-free in earlier versions. Search the archives of this list for "traditional GNU docu

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-17 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:58:01PM -0700, Brian C wrote: > I think answers to these questions are critical if progress is to > be made. If the FSF simply says, "This is our license. Now it is > solely up to you to include manuals licensed in this way or not." > then I think it is pretty clear that

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-17 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Brian C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Richard Stallman wrote: > > The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject > > GFDL-covered manuals. The argument for that is that there are many > > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can > > be interpreted to accep

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-17 Thread Brian C
Richard Stallman wrote: The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject GFDL-covered manuals. The argument for that is that there are many such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can be interpreted to accept it. As one of those more inclined to listen to t

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-16 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems > to be "this is the only way we can get our message out". > > The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue > here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian deci

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-16 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using > the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy > GFDL'd manuals and then do this. > > I congratulate you on your imagination--it never occurred t

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-16 Thread Richard Stallman
The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems to be "this is the only way we can get our message out". The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision. The question at hand is whether Debian should acc

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-16 Thread Richard Stallman
For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy GFDL'd manuals and then do this. I congratulate you on your imagination--it never occurred to me to think about this as a use of a manual. As it ha

Re: confetti (was: Unidentified subject!)

2003-09-15 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell, BSG said: > > For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using > > the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy > > GFDL'd manuals and then do this. > > Why? because you're inhibiting the later re

Re: confetti (was: Unidentified subject!)

2003-09-15 Thread Joe Moore
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said: > For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using > the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy > GFDL'd manuals and then do this. Why? because you're inhibiting the later recipient's ability to read them? Hmm.. within the te

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-15 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Any free software or free documentation license that has nontrivial > requirements can have results like this. For instance, there are > cases where people choose not to use a GPL-covered program because the > GPL has requirements that they don't wan

Unidentified subject!

2003-09-15 Thread Richard Stallman
Someone writing the (GFDL) manual for the GF45 compiler might have invariant sections, but won't be willing to copy my rant into his work; better to rewrite the section then annoy half the users. The fact that you're talking about a hypothetical example decades away suggests that

Unidentified subject!

2003-09-14 Thread D. Starner
> It adds some practical inconvenience, but practically speaking the > magnitude is not great, so there's no reason not to do it. Let's say I write a (GPL) compiler for Perl 2045, and someone writing a (GPL) sample implemenation of Fortran 2045 wants to borrow my regex code. They can do so; the o

Unidentified subject!

2003-04-15 Thread tinelli
Title: auguri       Happy Easter From Revue Agency Sales Joyeuse Paques du Magazine Agents commercials Frohe Ostern von Jurnal  Andelsvertreter

Unidentified subject!

2002-10-07 Thread Mark Rafn
On 7 Oct 2002, Ali Akcaagac wrote: > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 14:07, Fredrik Persson wrote: > well i don't have any problems releasing the sourcecode. thats not what > i am concerned of. Yes, but releasing the sourcecode is not what makes free software. Really, it comes down to people's ability to

Unidentified subject!

2002-09-06 Thread Ignacio García Fernández
>From ignacio Fri Sep 6 11:56:41 2002 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:56:41 +0200 Received: from shannon ([147.156.161.144] helo=localhost ident=ignacio) by shannon with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17n

Unidentified subject!

2002-08-13 Thread Mohd Nazri

Unidentified subject!

2002-07-31 Thread John Udeh
MR. JOHN UDEH Tel: 234-

Unidentified subject!

2002-07-17 Thread David Carlisle
> > The teTeX distribution is free software; you can redistribute it > and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as > published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the > License, or (at your option) any later version. > > On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the

Re: Unidentified subject!

2002-07-17 Thread Jeff Licquia
On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 17:26, Boris Veytsman wrote: > Then they obviously should remove texinfo and all FSF info system as > well, since it is TeX-based. > > A sad situation of ignorance: Debian people do not realize that they > ALREADY use TeX with its LPPL-like reservation of the name TeX. They

Unidentified subject!

2002-07-16 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:59:13 +0100 > From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > if that were the case you would presumably remove TeX and the TeX > fonts from Debian as well. In that case the licence on LaTeX would > be moot as without TeX you can't use LaTeX whatever the licence.

Unidentified subject!

2001-11-14 Thread Deedra Waters
unsubscribe

Re: Unidentified subject!

2001-08-24 Thread Branden Robinson
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 05:42:16PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 08:36:16AM +, Jeff Prescot wrote: > > So, I verified myself and, do you know what, I have discovered that > > each mail that we post to debian-legal, for example, is also posted > > by Debian to the Usenet N

Re: Unidentified subject!

2001-08-24 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 08:36:16AM +, Jeff Prescot wrote: > Marcelo Magallon wrote: > >It should be emphasized that this is something *newsreaders* use. What > >the author says using this header is that he doesn't want email copies > >of Usenet posts, which is similar but not the same as mailin

Unidentified subject!

2001-08-24 Thread Jeff Prescot
Raul Miller wrote: You either have something interesting to say, or YOU are off-topic. http://lists.debian.org/misc.html says about debian-legal "Copyright, licensing and patent issues". It doesn't explicitly say "relevant to Debian activities." Do we need to change this? My "something inte

Unidentified subject!

2001-05-13 Thread Walter Landry
All right, this is getting silly. I just talked to my brother who got a letter to the editor published in the Economist. He didn't sign a single thing, and there are no disclaimers. The Economist is based in England, but it has offices in many countries. That subjects them to almost every conce

Unidentified subject!

2001-04-12 Thread skdjfh

Unidentified subject!

2001-04-05 Thread Denis Kosygin
unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

2001-01-23 Thread Samuel Womble
unsubscribe Eminem? Dr. Dre? --> http://www.eminem2000.com http://www.eminemboard.com ? D-12? --> http://www.d12world.com

Unidentified subject!

2001-01-23 Thread Samuel Womble
unsubscribe Eminem? Dr. Dre? --> http://www.eminem2000.com http://www.eminemboard.com ? D-12? --> http://www.d12world.com

Unidentified subject!

2000-10-15 Thread andreas . franzen
Hi, the package rtlinux contains RTLinux. This is a real-time layer below the Linux kernel to provide a Linux operating system with real-time capabilities. In the documentation of version 3.0 of RTLinux a patent is mentioned (US Patent No. 5,995,745). This patent covers the underlying principle

Unidentified subject!

2000-07-31 Thread TAIYO
July 30, 2000 FROM: PANDA INDUSTRIES, HAJI PURA, SIALKOT -PAKISTAN Phone: Office:  0432-582384 Factory: 0432-256667 Fax: 0432-263777 E mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear President, Re: Footbags - filled with sand or plastic beeds As our introduction, it is informed that we are manu

Unidentified subject!

2000-07-31 Thread TAIYO
July 30, 2000 FROM: PANDA INDUSTRIES, HAJI PURA, SIALKOT -PAKISTAN Phone: Office:  0432-582384 Factory: 0432-256667 Fax: 0432-263777 E mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear President, Re: Footbags - filled with sand or plastic beeds As our introduction, it is informed that we are manu

Unidentified subject!

2000-03-01 Thread maor
0subscribe

Unidentified subject!

2000-03-01 Thread maor
0subscribe

Unidentified subject!

2000-02-06 Thread Chanop Silpa-Anan
debian-legal Bcc: Subject: Re: Copyproblem on some fonts I intend to package Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 03:15:53PM + Organization: Linux X-URL: http://kenji.anu.edu.au/~chanop/ X-OS: Linux 2.2.14 i686 If one font has this copy

Unidentified subject!

1999-03-24 Thread Anonymous
Hi all, There is a multicol.sty new license (from the tools package of LaTeX). It's LaTeX license + some moral. It probably raises questions that few of us can properly answer both from the legal and philosophical point of view, but it "tastes" like "free". Let's hope this will not disqualify

Unidentified subject!

1999-02-07 Thread Dale James Thompson
OK, I have written the author of postilion, Nic Bernstein, and in his reply he shared with me the reasons that the new copyright was added to the graphics files included with postilion. The artist of said graphics is concerned that they might be used in "just any program". But, Nic is willing

  1   2   >