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 where there is still source code
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:01:39 -0500,
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
No metafont, truetype, or postscript font outlines,
At Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:58:09 -0500,
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:01:39 -0500,
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:51, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Compare to this: You give a text to a newspaper with this licence:
* you may read it
* you may print it
Then there is no way I can stop them from printing, after we both
accepted these conditions.
Sure, but if they gave you the license
emacswiki.org uses the FDL at the moment; I'd like to move away from
the FDL to a very simple license I can understand in two minutes, and
I want to allow people to upgrade to the FDL, the GPL, the Creative
Commons ShareAlike (CC SA) license, the XEmacs manual license, or any
other copyleft
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:34:01AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
I'd sure like to know what Eben Moglen thinks about this issue.
He submitted comments on behalf of the FSF on November 14. See:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=1127301
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:38:20PM +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote:
I'm looking for some advice concerning the wording of the following
license. The goal is to keep this license as short as possible while
still making it a copyleft license upgradable to any of the other
licenses.
1. You
Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
emacswiki.org uses the FDL at the moment; I'd like to move away from
the FDL to a very simple license I can understand in two minutes, and
I want to allow people to upgrade to the FDL, the GPL, the Creative
Commons ShareAlike (CC SA) license, the
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:38:20PM +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote:
4. When you distribute the work, you must provide the recipients
access to the preferred form for making copies and
modifications, for no more than your costs of doing so.
It is worth noting that this clause is
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 16:36, Osamu Aoki wrote:
HITACHI font is bitmap fonts. Since it is 32 dots fonts which can hold
some aestetic feature of characters, it has uniq shape as a set of
characters.
If starts recognizing copyright on bitmap fonts, then we'll have to
start removing a fair
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:52:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
One of
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
In the United States, fonts can't be copyrighted. Only font
programs (e.g., the PostScript code used to produce the glyph) can
be. So there can be no copyright on bitmap fonts, and using a bitmap
font, a printout, or even tracing over an image on
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
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should spell these licenses out in full, such as the GNU General
Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation. You
should include the as published by clause so that nobody unscrupulous
decides to publish a GPL that is really a
On Nov 25, 2003, at 09:29, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Company B produces some kind of Sweets. Because the packaging is not
very large, they put a note on it for a descriptions of the
ingredients, mail us this way and we will send them to you. Then they
sell or give away (doesn't matter) some
On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 09:09, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Original author (Hitachi, who were infringed), and kochi upstream
author (who infringed without knowing) already discussed and their
conclusion was that it was not just bogus.
Erm, when asking the question of whether or not they are
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 to provide source. It doesn't
talk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 01:30:46AM +0100, Alex Schroeder wrote:
Why do you think it is not appropriate for a legal document? I have
heard a friend with a law PhD here in Switzerland say that a broad and
fuzzy text is just as appropriate for legal texts, because then the
court will examine the
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:01:39 -0500,
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
No metafont, truetype, or postscript font outlines, just bitmaps?
Well, it's complicated issue.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
I don't think you want to say You can change the license -- perhaps
you want to say You may also choose to receive this under the terms
of any other copyleft license, such as the GNU GPL, CreativeCommons
ShareAlike, or XEmacs Manual License.
20 matches
Mail list logo
