21-Jul-02 01:29 Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Indeed, I can do two things:
Make a derivate work of latex, which is variant, and called
special-non-latex.
Make a package with no derivatives of latex at all, which contains a
single symlink: 'latex -
23-Jul-02 18:46 Frank Mittelbach wrote:
The license already allows sub-works within LaTeX to have additional
modification requirements beyond the LPPL. If you thought that some of
the sub-authors would disagree with relaxing the file naming requirement
when changing the name of the work
23-Jul-02 15:02 Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
If you think of LPPL applying to the whole of a LaTeX sty/cls tree of
files at once, we could, i think
live with the idea (it is even described so in modguide or cfgguide as a
possible though not encouraged
solution (thereby actually violating the
Hi!
Here is some combination of the Chinese Dissident and Fred the Lawyer
tests.
Consider the following situation. There is a program written in
Europe. Someone in USA (say, Fred the USA dissident:-) takes this
program and incorporates some form of encryption which is illegal to
export from USA.
19-Nov-03 13:25 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
Yes.
Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to
programming ;-) )
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e.
why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL?
When binaries are not the prefered form for modification, as in the
case
25-Nov-03 19:19 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00202.html
Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's clear that our basic disagreement is here. I see
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require
25-Nov-03 23:11 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think Alexander's point may have merit. If you distribute whatever
precise bits it was that the copyright holder waved a copy of the GPL
over, those bits must be assumed to be the Program, and as such GPL
#2
27-Nov-03 04:41 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Nov 26, 2003, at 21:59, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry, it's not yet clear to me why Section 2 is not applicable to
binaries.
Section 2 says you may do so under the terms of Section 1 above.
Section 1 grants rights to copy and distribute
26-Nov-03 20:01 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
You mean that section 3 should really be read as If you ... you must
... instead of You may ... provided that ... and must be complied
with irrespective of section 2?
If you are distributing an executable
26-Nov-03 06:57 Henning Makholm wrote:
If you distribute whatever precise bits it was that the copyright
holder waved a copy of the GPL over, those bits must be assumed to be
the Program,
Right, GPL 0 is clear about it:
This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a
25-Nov-03 15:04 Don Armstrong wrote:
Can someone who holds that non-trivial bitmap fonts [eg. fonts larger
than ~4x5 pixels] cannot be copyrighted please walk through the
rational for their position? [Ideally including case law citations.]
1. Typeface is not copyrightable because its artistic
27-Nov-03 05:24 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Nov 24, 2003, at 11:15, GOTO Masanori wrote:
So it's hard to make Japanese characters which have beautiful shape
and unified baseline because each form is complex, and there are a lot
of such complicated characters.
Well, at the risk of starting a
30-Nov-03 22:30 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Erm... you mean, without this exception compiler itself must be
placed under GPL?
If the compiler is a separate work and doesn't link itself into the
work, most likely not. However, if, for example, you
30-Nov-03 17:12 Don Armstrong wrote:
Eh, that should teach me to go by my memory of the license. I meant
2a. Because they are object files, it's pretty nigh impossible for
them to bear prominent notices stating that the files have been
changed and the date of any change.
That's a separate
7-Dec-03 13:50 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Section 2 allows someone (not copyright holder) to distribute a
binary, there are only two alternatives IMHO: either
1. Section 2 doesn't require source form of anything distributable
8-Dec-03 11:15 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What prevents you from distributing binaries produced from sources
under Section 2?
Hm, that's a good question. It seems to be another wording oversight.
I can't get rid of the thought
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sure source is a big plus:-) But there are many binaries where the
lack of source is not that fatal -- bitmap pictures generated from
layered source, PostScript/PDF generated from TeX, info generated
from
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
at all
15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you
can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a
particular kind of modification
17-Dec-03 07:26 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Emphasis added, of course. So, when I write a plugin I can't claim to
have created a compilation of the plugin and the host, because the
plugin is not preexisting.
Following the readme file's statement that A is a plugin for HOST
certainly does not
16-Dec-03 16:07 Joe Moore wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis said:
The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
what they'd do then.
I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that The Work
described
16-Dec-03 13:34 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
license to trump each other?
If one section of a legal
13-Jan-04 14:52 Branden Robinson wrote:
I personally[1] would maintain that a requirement to change a filename
is an unacceptable restriction on one's freedom to modify the work. The
LaTeX Project no longer appears to be interested in contending this
issue, and I know of no other copyright
17-Jun-04 12:24 Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
My point is that any sentence talking about a work based on the
Program is by default talking about both derivative and collective
works.
No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: a work based on
the
18-Jun-04 12:55 Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 18/06/2004 12:49 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
transformation??!!
Why is this a problem?
*because* the GPL exempts
at the specific article that states
this rule in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ ?
The issue was raised on this list before. I tried to describe my
understanding of it in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg3.html . But it
was long ago and I didn't revisit it since then.
Alexander
for
examples. I will be glad to hear that something has changed in the
last five years but I somehow doubt it.
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
to wonder (apart from legal system:-)...
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
with?
Alexander Cherepanov
[1] http://geolite.maxmind.com/download/geoip/database/LICENSE.txt
--
There are two licenses, one for the C library software, and one for
the database.
SOFTWARE LICENSE (C library)
The GeoIP C Library
be used in limited editions (e.g. only the associated country, but
not the contact informations).
Then it would be in public domain?
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
the DFSG (although deprecated).
It's (L)GPL-incompatible, but, in the present case, I am under the
impression that data files are merely aggregated with (and indeed used
as data by) the C code: as a consequence, the license incompatibility
should not be an issue.
I agree.
Alexander Cherepanov
to all Licenses. So I don't see how your conclusion follows.
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
be copied under a
different licence, if appropriate.
I agree here.
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
to choose.
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
any
copyright in this work) with GPLv3 attached and all references to
other licenses (whether GPLv2 or BSD) stripped. AFAICS it's clearly
permitted under clauses 4 and/or 5 of GPLv3.
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
fully agree that it's important question. And would like to see some
solid base here. Unfortunately, for now, I only see appeals to judge's
common sense, morality etc.
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
license grants then (and only
then) my recipients can choose a license. But if I keep only the
license which applies to me then they cannot choose a license.
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
require to keep it really intact or permits to drop BSD or?
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
permission.
- permission which is notably lacking from the GPL.
Example from the section 7 of the GPLv3 is above.
Alexander Cherepanov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
41 matches
Mail list logo
