On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 05:16, Branden Robinson wrote:
* Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. [...]
This means that one should not use the
terminology or rhetoric of natural rights (such as the right to free
speech, exercise
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:09:03AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
So ... you agree that any interesting license discriminates. You
Discrimination is inherent in most everything; as it is simply the act of
noting differences. We can note differences between our opinions on
licensing, car style,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:22:33AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me.
John Goerzen writes:
And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like OSI
and the DFSG must become more like OSD.
... and the OSD must become more
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 08:16 pm, Branden Robinson wrote:
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
[]
A nice collection of arguments, but I'm really uncertain why you're posting
it here. Isn't this kind of preaching to the choir?
John Goerzen writes:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:22:33AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me.
John Goerzen writes:
And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like
OSI
and the DFSG must become more like OSD.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Followup to -legal.]
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
* Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. It is a
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:47, Russell Nelson wrote:
Of course. You cave-in on some things, we cave-in on others. Or
don't you understand what compromise means? Compromise means that you
give up on some things in order to get something else you want more.
Yes! Now you have
You wrote:
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
If you share either of these perspectives, then you might also wish to
help restore sanity to modern discussions of intellectual property law by
not referring to allegedly infringing
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
(I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Please set your Mail-Followup-To: appropriately then.
we don't have to worry about legal issues as much, being
source-based, but I've been
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5
minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
still haven't been fixed.
Grr. Missing reference.
2:
subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reconsider using the term intellectual property
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
The problem here is that no alternatives are suggested. We in Italy
tendo to use intellectual patrimony (like heritage) or intellectual
paternity (like parenthood), according
subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hello to everybody
here is another package of mplayer :-)
(prepared for Debian testing)
http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer
Here is the history of our effort.
---
In Sep 2001, Dariush filed an Intent to Package mplayer for Debian.
I wished to sponsor. We decided (~1 year ago) to try to put
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights[0], adopted by the United Nations in 1948, lists many other
rights commonly thought of as natural rights or civil rights.
You'll note that the terms copyright, trademark, and patent do
not even appear
subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sorry: yesterday evening I commented out the lines
#on wakeup:
# boot brain/0
I am now self-patching with the help of a java-cup
a.
--
Andrea Mennucc
E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa! (Tonino Carotone)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
(I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Please set your Mail-Followup-To: appropriately then.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
can be made.
Is this particularly good advice? It's my understanding that the best
(only)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Followup to -legal.]
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
* Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
copyright IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT.
Le mer 29/01/2003 à 05:22, Seth Woolley a écrit :
Nobody has provided that, and I'm here, doing my part to lobby for you
guys to improve your selection. MPlayer is the best, the fastest, the
most stable, and the easiest to use (IMHO) of any of the players, to date,
and it would be terrible
Don Armstrong wrote:
There have already been numerous legal issues discussed in the mplayer
saga, ranging from licensing irregularities to copyright problems and
patent issues.
That's fine to say, but if you let us know what they are, and we'll comment/fix
them.
So far there are libmpeg2
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:47:21PM +1300, Philip Charles wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Followup to -legal.]
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
* Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm
John Goerzen writes:
The DFSG does not simply say No discrimination; it says no discrimination
against persons or groups. While you may enjoy your over-legalistic
interpretation, a reasonable person understands that this clause does not
mean to reject every possible license.
Exactly my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
MPlayer is the best, the fastest, the
most stable, and the easiest to use (IMHO) of any of the players, to date,
and it would be terrible not to include it because of personal issues.
There are
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
can be made.
In fact, I prefer to not hear about any software patents that are not
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
* Some countries, particularly some in Europe, have a concept of moral
rights that attach to creative works. I admit I am not too familiar
with these, but they are not the same thing as copyright and have
little in common
Paul Hampson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Followup to -legal.]
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
* Under U.S. law and the laws of most countries I'm familiar with,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Is this particularly good advice?
Heh. It's not really even advice, since IANAL. I just think it's
something that we should be aware of.
It's my understanding that the best (only) way to minimize patent
liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoid
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:18:10PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Free Redistribution
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Gabucino wrote:
we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael
Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue
himself for his own code.
How can Debian be sure that that's the case? Debian (correctly) avoids
areas of questionable legality
Josselin Mouette wrote:
it *will* be accepted. No matter how many stupid rants Gabucino can write
Huh? I am not against MPlayer being included into Debian.
no matter how crappy the code is,
Uh.. MPlayer's code is crappy? Hm :)
I already encountered performance issues on my 700 MHz Athlon
On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Goerzen writes:
Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the
consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal,
say one thing, and you, one member of debian-legal, say another
[Paul Hampson]
If I write a book, isn't it mine to control who reads it?
But if you publish it, you have no right to control who reads it.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
Aside from the point that having knowledge of the patents can lead to
charges of *willful* infringement,
That's true. I should probably have said information about patents
that are being actively prosecuted, but then again, if it's something
that (in
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
MPlayer's website: Also, why does debian-legal think they know what
is GPL and what is not better than MPlayer and XAnim authors.
If you want or need this point clairified, I suggest you contact RMS
or an FSF representative. I believe it's fairly clear.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:47:11AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open
source licenses should be run past debian-legal. I'm not proposing
unilateral action on anybody's part. I'm prepared to compromise (or
rather, to recommend
I would like to help Charles Bloom make the Bloom Public License (BPL)
DFSG compliant. It's available at: http://www.cbloom.com/bpl.txt
The version modified May 14, 2002 seems to have problems with it.
Item 2 asks that the distributor MUST notify the recipient. I'm
guessing that a license file
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5
minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
still haven't been fixed.
Obviously, if after such a short bit of searching, that such a problem
Steve Langasek writes:
What would the benefits to the greater community be if the DFSG were more
like the OSD?
Let me rephrase what you said. I want to be clear that I expect
Debian to change the DFSG, and OSI to change the OSD. Both documents
can be improved, but they should be improved to
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Some countries, particularly some in Europe, have a concept of moral
rights that attach to creative works. I admit I am not too familiar
with these, but they are not the same thing
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I would like to help Charles Bloom make the Bloom Public License (BPL)
DFSG compliant. It's available at: http://www.cbloom.com/bpl.txt
The version modified May 14, 2002 seems to have problems with it.
Very much so. The license is kind of a mess
Scripsit Drew Scott Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's available at: http://www.cbloom.com/bpl.txt
Hm, first of all, clause 1 seems to severely restrict which software
the author himself is allowed to distribute. If he gives his neighbor
a disk with GCC on it, he will be in trouble with the GPL, or
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:49:54PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
2) Besides that, there are at least four definitions of free
software: the OSD, the DFSG, the DFSG as interpreted by debian-legal,
and RMS's definition.
This seems to be the root of the issue: the DFSG is _not_ a definition.
It
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs.
Yes. A lot of people ignore (rightly or wrongly) 2c. Should Debian
ignore it? That's not for me to decide.
What concerned me was
Scripsit Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
The right to be identified as the work's author,
etc., and the monpoly on copymaking, are two facets of the very same
legal concept, at least in Danish law and to the best of my knowledge
Drew Scott Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to help Charles Bloom make the Bloom Public License (BPL)
DFSG compliant. It's available at: http://www.cbloom.com/bpl.txt
Looking at the message you quoted, it might be easier to just have him
dual-license under the GPL.
Regards,
Walter
Simon Law wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:55:05PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
[...]
the DFSG does not prohibit a license from requiring a specific form of
affirmative assent known as click-wrap. Our recently-passed change to
the OSD fixes that problem.
I fail to see how a
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
1) Surely you've seen the Monty Python movie Life of Brian, where
the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front are
constantly at loggerheads? While the real power are the Romans, of
course. I needn't elaborate.
Perhaps I'm dense, or
Don Armstrong wrote:
we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael
Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue
himself for his own code.
How can Debian be sure that that's the case?
What do you need? A hand-written permission from Walken, photocopied
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:26:45AM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I would like to help Charles Bloom make the Bloom Public License (BPL)
DFSG compliant. It's available at: http://www.cbloom.com/bpl.txt
The version modified May 14, 2002 seems to have problems with it.
[ ... ]
Item 6 seems
I'm on the mailing list. Debian policy is to not CC the author. If
you guys can't follow Debian policy, how in the WORLD do you think
anybody can follow the DFSG, much less your interpretation of it? I
am not encouraged by your behavior. It's not something to engender
confidence.
Jason
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:33:31AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
It's my understanding that the best (only) way to minimize patent
liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoid knowing anything about
potentially relevant patents entirely.
AFAIK, ignorance of patents doesen't protect you
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Gabucino wrote:
Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below?
So after looking, I find that lrmi.c is under this license:
Copyright (C) 1998 by Josh Vanderhoof
You are free to distribute and modify this file, as long as you do
not remove this copyright notice and
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:46:03PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
I'm on the mailing list. Debian policy is to not CC the author. If
you guys can't follow Debian policy, how in the WORLD do you think
anybody can follow the DFSG, much less your interpretation of it? I
am not encouraged by your
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
can be gained from reading
/alessandro wrote:
The problem here is that no alternatives are suggested.
Yes, specificity is the recommended alternative. The page
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty)
says:
To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or
write
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:46:03PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Jason McCarty writes:
Anyway, the only reason xsane is still dfsg-free is that the EULA _could_
be removed. If the license prohibited removal, then it wouldn't be
dfsg-free.
You guys are funny. You're like the temperance
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:40:32PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
can be gained from
Sounds good to me. It should address the points brought up. I'm going to
ask about the removal of the section that allows him to revoke any part of
the license.
Drew Daniels
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:50:29 -0800
From: Charles Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 09:58 am, Henning Makholm wrote:
* Because copyrights are not inherent, are not natural rights, are not
granted by God, but in fact merely incentive programs instituted by
governments, one does not violate the rights of anyone when one
disregards or acts
According to how I read the FSF's page, the problem is not avoided by using
another phrase to replace intellectual property.
You are right. But I think I am too :)
Any opinions you convey about copyright (for instance) probably are not true
for patents, and vice versa.
Definitely. I am
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Because copyrights are not inherent, are not natural rights, are not
granted by God, but in fact merely incentive programs instituted by
governments, one does not violate the rights of anyone when one
disregards or acts contrary to a person's
Charles Bloom (via Drew Scott Daniels) wrote:
How about if I add this term at the top :
0. The software may be used or distributed according to the terms of
the GPL (GNU Public License) at the distributor's option.
If you do not wish to adhere to the terms of the GPL, you
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:40 pm, Richard Braakman wrote:
Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point
of having patents in the first place?
Heh. The patent system has outlived its usefulness, yes. I believe that it
actually was still useful sometime around 1900 or
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
...
If one is unconvinced that copyrights are fundamentally different from
natural rights, one may wish to perform a thought experiment. Do you
believe that
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:47:21PM +1300, Philip Charles wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Followup to -legal.]
Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
collective use of certain terms.
*
please read debian/README.Debian.2 in the source;
do you think that it is/isn't fit to go into Debian?
This sounds rather silly. I've read over README.Debian.2 and I think
all of what is said in there should go into debian/copyright.
regards,
junichi
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 09:43, Seth Woolley wrote:
All I see from you people is he's a bad, bad boy and nothing
substantive. You also whine as much as he does.
You guys blew the libmpeg2 issue way out of proportion, considering the
libmpeg2 author was in on the whole thing.
I haven't seen a
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 09:53 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
From http://www.advogato.org/article/7.html:
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (effectively the final
word
on patent law, since the Supreme Court rarely takes patent cases) has
ruled that anyone who is not a patent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 09:43, Seth Woolley wrote:
All I see from you people is he's a bad, bad boy and nothing
substantive. You also whine as much as he does.
You guys blew the libmpeg2 issue way out
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
So if people on debian-legal thinks that it is important, I will add
a diff of libmpeg2.
Just so I'm not misunderstood, my point wasn't about a diff. [That's
definetly not required at all. The use of diff was just to demonstrate
that it had been
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:42:23PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
It seems that what you are saying, then, is that we should completely
ignore any patent
issues until and unless we are prompted to do so by holders claiming
that we are infringing.
I'm just quoting from an article I read, which
72 matches
Mail list logo
