Hello,
this reply is very short. I'm only adressing the technical points made.
On Sun, Aug 16, 1998 at 04:23:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Nope. Not an infringement, if it already is guaranteed to be
on the system. You have no knowledge of the law, apparently.
We do not only
On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 02:18:19AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
We can only enforce it if we ship the license with
the package. If you want to be clever about this, I'll not follow you, as I
think this is not only asking for legal problems but also bad for the
reputation of Debian.
Hi,
Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Hello,
Marcus this reply is very short. I'm only adressing the technical points made.
Marcus On Sun, Aug 16, 1998 at 04:23:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Nope. Not an infringement, if it already is guaranteed to be
Hi,
Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Hello,
Marcus On Sun, Aug 16, 1998 at 05:30:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Marcus I quote the GPL for you:
Marcus 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
Marcus source code as you receive it,
On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 03:11:10AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
You have fulfilled your duty making it available in the same directory as
the rest of the source. However, for Debian, being a huge distribution, with
Some shades of grey:
1) GPL is available on some ftp site or CD somewhere
OK, this is informal, but I think the argument is sound.
We know that some countries (like the US) consider copyright licenses
to be able to be covered by copyright. I assume that there is an
implicit license to copy (verbatim) the license whenever the work
licenses is legally copied
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I say we should not have the exception even for copyright
documents. They should be in the verbatim section, on another CD, but
in an required package, and with all indications that they are an
integral part of Debian.
I think that
Manoj writes:
Nothing requires licenses to be bundled with the products them selves.
That's not the real issue.
The real issue, in the context of debian, is: what can be guaranteed to
exist on the typical user's machine. And, that basically means the base
system (or the essential packages).
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any package which consisted of standalone licenses would go in verbatim.
Note that at least some licenses should be part of the base system.
Any non-free standards go in verbatim.
Only if they allow unlimited distribution. If distribution is somehow
Hi,
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Now, this discussion grew out of the desire to include a variety of
Raul standards documents with Debian. But I feel it's important to note that
Raul it's possible to replace standards (for example, Unix98 can be thought
Raul of as a
Hi,
Jacob == Jacob Shukert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jacob Are the other groups who produce Linux distributions involved
Jacob in defining this standard?
Not that I am aware of, at the moment. However, I am by no
means an authority on this.
Jacob It appears to me, after reading the
Hi,
Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 11:57:26AM +1000, Drake Diedrich wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 03:11:10AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
You have fulfilled your duty making it available in the same directory as
the rest of the
Hi,
Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Jules, did I understand you correctly that you mean with
Marcus standalone licenses licenses that don't apply to any work
Marcus specifically (for example a package with example licenses for
Marcus you to pick from, or a
On 17 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The GPL, LGPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses do not apply to any
software specifically, and can be considered stand alone. (If I am
wrong, please point out wording in the license that specifies which
package or specific software the license
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Hello.
Charles == Charles Briscoe-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Charles Non-software? Data is software, isn't it?
Not as the term is commonly used.
Granted; but you might want to use non-program or non-executable in
the title of your
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul I think that /usr/doc/copyright/* should be on the most minimal
Raul binary CD. Standards documents can go on a separate CD, but
Raul asking that these copyrights go on a separate CD is asking too
Raul much.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL
Hi,
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago On 17 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The GPL, LGPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses do not apply to any
software specifically, and can be considered stand alone. (If I am
wrong, please point out wording in the license that
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Now, this discussion grew out of the desire to include a
Raul variety of standards documents with Debian. But I feel it's
Raul important to note that it's possible to replace standards (for
Raul example, Unix98 can be thought of as a
Buddha Buck writes:
I assume that there is an implicit license to copy (verbatim) the license
whenever the work licenses is legally copied (verbatim or not).
The license is normally included as part of the work to which it applies.
Thus the license may apply to itself, depending on the exact
However, the essential package that provides
/usr/doc/copyright caould well live in the verbatim section. We
should not compromise on our free license stance any more than we
compromise on our free software stance.
I don't mind either way on this example, but if you follow this logic
Hi,
[I do not think we are i dispute, but I have a reputation to
maintain ;-)]
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Eh? I'm having trouble understanding how we do things now, if the
Raul binary distribution becomes multiCD.
I parsed your objection to
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 10:51:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL, LGPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses do not apply to any
software specifically, and can be considered stand alone. (If I am
wrong, please point
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 10:30:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
However, the essential package that provides
/usr/doc/copyright caould well live in the verbatim section. We
should not compromise on our free license stance any more than we
compromise on our free software
Hi,
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Now, this discussion grew out of the desire to include a
Raul variety of standards documents with Debian. But I feel it's
Raul important to note that it's possible to replace standards
Hi,
Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Hello,
Marcus On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 10:30:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
However, the essential package that provides
/usr/doc/copyright caould well live in the verbatim section. We
should not compromise on our free
manoj writes:
I see no reason to bloat every package like that. We are not required to
(point 2 in the list above satisfies all legal requirements). I think
that we should actually move the copyrights to the verbatim section, and
move to point 2 above. As long as they are on every debian
Marcus writes:
The license applies to the software it copyrights.
The license grant (an abstraction) applies to the software to which it
grants rights. The license document represents this abstraction.
If I apply the GPL to my work, this work is copyrighted under the terms
of the GPL. If any
27 matches
Mail list logo
