Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/20/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The law says so: articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.
http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ar52.html
Understood that that's the statutory basis for the subject matter test
(parallel to 35 USC 101),
MJ Ray wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The law says so: articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.
http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ar52.html
If the EPO is an artefact of the EPC, it can't be the people
who wrote that law so why is EPO reinterpreting the EPC?
Because
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent
with the functionality of the
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for
modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really
do prefer an unpractical form to modify a program, then it's still my
source, and your definition is
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for
modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really
do prefer an unpractical form to
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sometimes source just isn't enough to figure out how a program (or hardware)
works, lacking eg. hardware documentation; that's annoying, but it's still
source. If I create a program with a hex editor, it's source, even if it
doesn't serve Free
I was surprised to see in this list of non-free documentation packages soon to be moved out of main so many works licensed under the Open Publication License (OPL):
http://packages.debian.net/non-free-docs.html
I note that the recommended boilerplate used for the OPL is as follows:
from the SGI Free Software License B:
7. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient
shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations in connection with use
and distribution of
the Subject Software, including but not limited to,
all export and import
control laws and regulations of the
** Matthew Garrett ::
If you define source as the preferred form for modification,
then
http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86
/drivers/nv/nv_hw.c?rev=1.7view=markup is not source. I, on the
other hand, believe that it is an acceptable (though borderline)
form of
On 7/21/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The example I gave earlier is
http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t950931eu1.pdf
which is European patent application
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?IDX=EP0332770
that was rejected for being a business method as such. And
if
Hi all,
I would like to know what do you guys think about the CDDL license
[1]. Does it meet with the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
I've started a discussion [2] on the OpenSolaris mail list about my
proposal of creating a new Debian architecture based on OpenSolaris.
The first
Hi all,
I would like to know what do you guys think about the CDDL license
[1]. Does it meet with the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
I've started a discussion [2] on the OpenSolaris mail list about my
proposal of creating a new Debian architecture based on OpenSolaris.
The first
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anything that allows a form of practical modification
consistent with the functionality of the resulting work,
What does that mean?
That definition
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sometimes source just isn't enough to figure out how a program (or hardware)
works, lacking eg. hardware documentation; that's annoying, but it's still
source. If I create a program with a hex editor, it's source, even if it
On 7/21/05, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip stuff where I agree with Don 100%]
ITYM Freedom 1 (the second) or possibly Freedom 3 (the last). In
either case, in this situation, you've got everything that the
original author has to be able to modify the work. You're not being
[Please trim your responses so that they only contain the minimal
verbiage necessary to present your point; otherwise we'll leave them
unread.]
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/21/05, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, the FOSS movement is about giving everyone
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you back up a bit, first, and explain to me why that is not the
preferred form for modification? It certainly looks like it to me.
The preferred form for modification has all of the hex constants
replaced with preprocessor defines that give you
On 7/21/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
US Patent class 705 is full of such patents where the examiner
wasn't on the ball. Only very recently have I seen US office
actions where the examiner talks about technological progress.
Oh, I agree with you completely that this is one of
X-Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to create a package for ng-spice, which seems to be governed by two
licenses, which I include herein. In first reading I cannot see any real
discrepancies, but of course IANAL. Pls
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:07:05AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Could you back up a bit, first, and explain to me why that is not the
preferred form for modification? It certainly looks like it to me.
The preferred form for modification has all of the hex constants
replaced with
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
If you're going to accept programs for inclusion in main that are
written and maintained by people with an agenda -- which includes but
is not limited to corporate backers who profit from the sale of tied
produces and services -- you have to
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That depends. I can see two scenarios: either they removed these constants
from their own codebase, and that's how they now maintain it; or they pass
the code through a filter to remove these constants before distributing it
to the world.
It's the
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 19:23 +0100, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to know what do you guys think about the CDDL license
[1]. Does it meet with the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
First of all, please paste the entire license in the mail, so that if
people use things
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:04:24AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm asking you to be willing to accept the consequences of the opinion
you hold, which (in this case) is inevitably going to be some large
amount of irritation from other members of the project.
I think it would be massive
24 matches
Mail list logo
