OK, I didn't appreciate the context here. My assumption was the docs
and code were being merely aggregated. If you want to port stuff back
and forth, you will have to use compatible licenses. Generally, we
think this happens infrequently enough that it's not worth bothering
with. But we
I've been really enjoying Ruby on Rails recently. So, I wanted to add
the Ruby license to the FSF's license list (the summary is that the
license on its own isn't free, while in disjunction with the GPL, it is,
so Ruby as a whole is OK). But I discovered that the license text
specifically
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
decisions yet.
Added in LPPL3:
{+If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 18:35, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:29, David Turner wrote:
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:35, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
David Turner writes:
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 11:17, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
Software Patent is legal in some countries (like US and Japan) and
is illegal in Europe (in the article 52 of the Munich Convention). If you
care
On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 17:58, Ville Muikkula wrote:
The apsfilter license is a combination of the GNU GPL and postcardware:
You are permitted to use the apsfilter package in the terms of the GNU
General Public License. If you use apsfilter for business or home
purposes, then please send
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 11:03, Fredrik Persson wrote:
Is this a loophole in the GPL? If my question above is answered with
Jim, I think it is. If the answer is Jill, it most likely is not.
So...
What do you all say about this?
I say that the answer is Jim, but that this is not as serious a
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 15:30, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 13:08, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
You have to take it out of whatever Debian distributes. I can
download the the
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 16:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
An intellectual decision is not necessarily an act of originality.
You're making a sweat-of-the-brow argument. That doesn't hold water
in the U.S. I'd appreciate cites of statues in countries where it does,
or English-language discussions
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 18:35, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 15:58, David Turner wrote:
35 USC 271 says:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States or imports
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 16:33, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I know nothing about patent law, US or otherwise, but I keep seeing
programs that are made freely available as source code, but not as
binaries, because they implement patented algorithms.
I believe that this, like the warez scene
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 00:36, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 19:34, David Turner wrote:
I found a case which says that blueprints are components in the sense
meant by (c) (well, actually (f), but it's the same language) above:
Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register, No. 98-CV-485C
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 17:17, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looking at it from a larger viewpoint, the idea that merely distributing
source code and saying, don't use this gets around patent law is
fairly silly.
Not really. Particularly if in fact no one
I've been discussing this with the FSF's outside counsel, Dan Ravicher.
I have some ideas for how to generate a new word-list if we do end up
needing one, but I don't want to discuss them until I've talked with a
lawyer. I'll probably get some sort of final answer with Dan tomorrow
at the GPL
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 15:40, Joe Moore wrote:
Derek Gladding said:
Hypothetical question...
Hypothetical answer below...
If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell, then:
- piped the whole of Usenet through it for a couple of weeks
- automatically removed all sequences of
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 20:50, Derek Gladding wrote:
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 05:30 pm, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 15:40, Joe Moore wrote:
Derek Gladding said:
Hypothetical question...
Hypothetical answer below...
If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 02:22, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:33:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
My suggestion is that you ask the FSF for their more detailed advice.
What contact address is best for this
Q.6:
: /* inflate.c -- Not copyrighted 1992 by Mark Adler
: version c10p1, 10 January 1993 */
Not copyrighted == public domain?
In practise, yes. In theory, not copyrighted is nonsense as
copyright is not a verb, nor an action that someone applies to the
code. A court
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
All portions of governed files not labeled otherwise are owned by Hans
Reiser, and by adding your code to it, widely distributing it to
others or sending us a patch, and leaving the sentence in stating that
licensing is governed by the
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 17:45, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:54:27PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
All portions of governed files not labeled otherwise are owned by Hans
Reiser, and by adding your code to it, widely
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 18:20, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:04:22PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 17:45, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:54:27PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
All
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 16:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Martin Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry,
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:27:29PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
- the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
domain. Er, modulo the small
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 15:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
change.
*When*
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 07:57, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
* The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
* in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Portions of the Software includes also the binary? Nobody include such
notices in binary!
FSF does
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 20:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Courts care not about the technical details of *how* you copy, but the
fact that you copy. You cannot copy qmail *at all* if you are making a
modified binary with it. This means you cannot
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:05, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
I'm intending to package PyDDR (http://www.clickass.org/~tgz/pyddr), a
Dance Dance Revolution simulator for UNIX systems. The basic idea behind
DDR is that you have a pattern of button presses (which you press with
your feet, hence dancing)
On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 15:44, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 07:03 am, John O Sullivan wrote:
I would welcome any comments on this, as would the a
href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]author/a.
IANAL, but my comments follow...
I'd recommend that the author carefully
On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 22:28, Sam Hartman wrote:
David == David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I think that a logo is beyond a copyright notice that 2 (c)
David requires the preservation of. Why not suggest switching to
David the AGPL?
Does that actually meet DFSG?
I
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 00:27, Russell Nelson wrote:
Netscape v. Specht turned on exactly that issue. Netscape lost
because they didn't make it clear to Specht that he was agreeing to a
contract.
IIRC, Netscape v. Specht concerned rights outside the exclusive rights
of the copyright holder, so
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 19:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:12:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Unfortunately, DFSG doesn't discuss what sorts of modifications can be
restricted.
Implicitly, no sort of restriction on modification is permitted, except
those already
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 04:53, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:56:44 -0500,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:12:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The GPL forbids removing code from interactive programs which displays
copyright notices.
Yes
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 09:17, Paolo Ariano wrote:
hi everybody
this is the second time:
i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:59, Steve Greenland wrote:
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
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 12:39, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
[GPL (2)(a) stuff snipped]
I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. (This is why I no
longer use
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:21, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
(2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
That's news to me. I even asked
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 14:51, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:30:34PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
Well... public domain in the USA
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 08:48, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Attribution
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of
Derivative Work:
| Derivative Work means a work based upon the Work or
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 17:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
those
I downloaded OpenSSH from:
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/OpenSSH/portable/openssh-3.5p1.tar.gz
It has the following copyright notice for crc32.c.
* COPYRIGHT (C) 1986 Gary S. Brown. You may use this program, or
* code or tables extracted from it, as desired without
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 15:02, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
itself.
I agree that this is a Free Software license, personally. It seems
fundamentally no different
[replying to two messages at once]
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 12:20, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'll note that the GNU GPL's 2c), for instance, does not mandate that
the announcement of the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer be
placed into files output or processed by the software, which is what
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:56, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner
(Is it on purpose that you didn't cc to the list?)
No, it was sheer idiocy. Fixed.
2(c) says that the notice must be displayed when started running for
such interactive use in the most ordinary way. That would
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
If I go further, and patent my modifications, to which in the United
States the only barrier appears to be the money to pay a patent lawyer
to file a claim with the USPTO, then the FSF has a real problem.
No, then you have a section 6 and 7
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 16:48, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:06:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Hm, you probably ought to be aware that the PHPNuke people seem to
have interpreted it as an authoritative statement from the FSF:
http://phpnuke.org/modules.php?name
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 18:49, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb It's not about what's fair; they make a license, they get to
tb have whatever license they want, but it's not a free software
tb license.
Last time I heard, FSF was still
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 18:34, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
FooWebProg is Copyright 2003, a href
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 15:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Furthermore, a broad interpretation of 2c would be inconsistent with the
way most FSF programs actually work. The stuff in GNU coreutils doesn't
generally spew a copyright
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:14:15PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Maybe for convenience, I'll use [EMAIL PROTECTED] when I've got the FSF hat
on, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] otherwise.
That's a fairly subtle distinction; I recommend changing your
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 21:08, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:06:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
A program in the middle of a pipeline never directly accepts input from
the user, nor does it output direcly to the user.
Therefore it is not interactive.
Bingo.
PHPNuks
against giving credit, but I don't believe
credit is the purpose of the GPL blurb and no-warranty statement.)
I have a hard time figuring out what that purpose is, at this point.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:06:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
A program in the middle of a pipeline never directly
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 16:33, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:37:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not
particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of
programs to be used in specific ways. I
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 21:28, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I agree that that's a reasonable and canonical interpretation of '4'.
My concern is with alternative interpretations of it, given that some
people here are advocating quite
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 15:54, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Interestingly, I don't think (2)(c) would forbid a modified PHPNuke to
print the copyright notice to a printer (or console) in the server room,
instead of on the web page the user sees. The more I look at the
clause, the more convinced I
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 Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:10, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were
always the basis of the DFSG.
The Four
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
FSF's definition of Free Software -- Constitution
Debian Free Software Guidelines-- statutory law
debian-legal discussions -- case law
So debian-legal, in our role as judges and arbitrators, attempt to
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
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:15:16PM -0500, Simon Law 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?
Oh... Let's say you run an ASP
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:31, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
*speaking as an FSF employee, but not stating an official position of
the foundation*
I just got out of a meeting on how to clean up (2)(c). No guarantees,
but I'm
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:56, John Goerzen wrote:
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?
I have another message in this thread
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 12:43, Branden Robinson wrote:
Hopefully you can understand my predicament. I'd really like to see
more in the way of round-table discussions between the FSF and the
Debian Project, especially since I feel that philosophically we have far
more similarities than
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
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, 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
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:41, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Not so!
On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
forward to a world founded upon four
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:42, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[snip flaming, the substance if which, if not the tone, I agree with]
RMS has shown his usual intransigence, but the real problem is that
the FSF has been starkly dishonest! He promised a review after a
comment period, and then the
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
I think it's brilliant.
I get nervous when people react so
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, 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
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
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:56, Anthony Towns wrote:
Specifying a protocol
in a license is a horribly bad thing; HTTP isn't useful everywhere,
and requiring you to rewrite the program entirely when the protocol
becomes obsolete is missing the point of free software pretty thoroughly.
We know the
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 18:52, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
I'm cc'ing debian-legal for the legal part of this discussion.
LZW was a patented algorithm which was included in Unix's compress and
some versions of the gif file format.
There may not be reason to exclude lzw and related code as the
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 05:01, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hrm, actually I don't think it even works. It's trivial to get a copy of
the program, not modify it at all, and setup a wholly separate filtering
proxy to ensure no one actually can activate the immediate transmission
by HTTP of the complete
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'd far rather live with the loophole and accept that some people will
make money by running a program with unpublished changes.
Of course, the issue is not money. The idea is that users of a program
ought to be able to get the source code for
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:29, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the licenses closed the ASP loophole in a way that forced me to
publish *all* these changes (and AFAIK that's one of the things
which people are considering), then I could not use this
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 05:01, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm not really convinced the ASP loophole is a loophole at all --
I'm not even really convinced that the GPL's attempts to cover various
forms of dynamic linking aren't over-reaching.
This isn't any thing specific to the GPL, but to copyright
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 13:11, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This doesn't address proprietary or otherwise difficult but not
impossible to reverse formats.
I considered that but I'm not sure how much of a threat it really is.
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, 2003-03-07 at 17:28, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:33:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'd far rather live with the loophole and accept that some people will
make money by running a program with unpublished changes
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 16:17, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Forced publication of in-house development considerably increases the
cost of running software.
This is only true when you adopt a high
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 Fri, 2003-03-07 at 18:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:27, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:28, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:33:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'd far rather live
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:46, Joe Moore wrote:
Barak Pearlmutter said:
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Perhaps a bit of clarification on the desert island test:
Are there really two desert island tests?
1) Person is stranded with a laptop* and a Software CD set (source and
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, 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
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:44, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) can software that forces a recipient to distribute it to
non-recipient
users still
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 18:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
In the dissident case, we're trying to protect the people from having to
reveal their changes to the government they're protesting. But this just
doesn't make any real sense: the code they're hacking on is the least of
their worries - it's the
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself.
In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder
or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded
on an island test does this), are valid, but
Thomas, I'm responding to your questions, but I'm actually directing my
response to Branden Robinson, since I don't know your position on his
DFSG-interpretation proposal.
Branden, if the FSF's four freedoms are the consitution to DFSG's case
law, they have a lot in common with the US
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:23, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns' excellent criticisms have provoked me to think of
another reason that the Chinese Dissident test captures something
important about free software, and thus why the QPL's forced
publication or the Affero bit are
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
