Bug#195338: Please remove phpnuke from main

Package: ftp.debian.org At ff., the debian-legal mailing list discusses PHPNuke, which is nominally under the GPL but whose author has made additional statements regarding the meaning of the GPL for his app. Consensus w

Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?

--- Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> からのメッ セージ： > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on > 19.05.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > How different are things really on the Continent? > Is *everthing* codified? [...] The important point being drawn out here is that the common law (U.S. U

Joint Authorship Re: More fun with Title 17 USC

--- Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> からのメッセ ージ： > On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 03:02:58AM -0400, Anthony > DeRobertis wrote: > > (Sec. 101): > > ''joint work'' is a work prepared by two or more > authors > > with the intention that their contributions be > merged > > into inseparable o

Re: ISO 3166 copyright

--- Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> からのメッセ ージ： > On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:42:53PM +0200, Martin > Schr�er wrote: > > On 2003-05-28 20:21:55 -0500, Branden Robinson > wrote: > > > Bah, there's no copyright in those lists; just > like there's no copyright > > > in the listings of the phone book

Re: Incomplete licence - what to do?

On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 19:26, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > I will contact upstream to fix this licence but first I would like to know > your opinion: what should I propose to the author as the new licence? MIT/X11: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php (new) BSD: http://www.opensource

Re: More fun with Title 17 USC

On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 11:40, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 03:02:58AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > (Sec. 101): > > ''joint work'' is a work prepared by two or more authors > > with the intention that their contributions be merged > > into inseparable or inte

Re: More fun with Title 17 USC

On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 07:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't think one coowner would be able to change the license terms of the > work as a whole without the consent of the other coowners. He can. That's one of the things it being a "joint work" instead of a "collective work" means. Any autho

Re: Bug#189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps

On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 20:00, Jakob Bohm wrote: > However the main point of my post was not that. My main point > was that in Borland vs. Lotus, the issue placed before the court > was the right to *re-implement* a compatible interface, not the > right to implement things that *use* the interface.

Re: Incomplete licence - what to do?

Hi Artur R. Czechowski, > Hello > > I would like to package a php4-rrdtool from wnpp[1]. I noticed that this > software has IMO incomplete licence. Full README file is available at: > http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/rrdtool/pub/contrib/php4-rrdtool-1.03.txt > > Interesting part about

Re: Bug#189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 11:57:18AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Jakob Bohm said: > >Anyway, I thought the common GPL linking claim was that the > >runtime in-memory process image includes a copy of the GPL code > >and is thus a derivative of that copy. > > But this "derivative" (if you assume

Incomplete licence - what to do?

Hello I would like to package a php4-rrdtool from wnpp[1]. I noticed that this software has IMO incomplete licence. Full README file is available at: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/rrdtool/pub/contrib/php4-rrdtool-1.03.txt Interesting part about copyright below. You are free to r

Re: Outcome of PHPNuke discussion

On Thu, 29 May 2003, Martin Schulze wrote: > I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian) > buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the > bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that > this is not a new restriction to the GPL? There

Re: Outcome of PHPNuke discussion

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian) > buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the > bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that > this is not a new restriction

Re: Outcome of PHPNuke discussion

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian) > buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the > bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that > this is not a new restriction

Outcome of PHPNuke discussion

I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian) buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that this is not a new restriction to the GPL? I see that phpnuke is still in main in testing and unstabl

Re: Bug #189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps

Steve Langasek wrote: >It is not "mere aggregation", for the same reason that a bug in a >library that makes it unusable by applications is a grave, not a >critical, bug: one piece of software is not "unrelated" to another if >the former depends on the latter. Ah, I get what I was missing earlier

Re: Bug#189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps

Jakob Bohm said: >Anyway, I thought the common GPL linking claim was that the >runtime in-memory process image includes a copy of the GPL code >and is thus a derivative of that copy. But this "derivative" (if you assume that it is a derived work) is created by the user on their home computer, an

Re: Choosing a license for stumbleupon

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:30:21PM +, Alan Woodland wrote: > I filed an ITP recently for stumbleupon, and have been talking with the > upstream author about a suitable license for the mozilla toolbar. Im > not an expert on legal or license related issues, so I'm posting here > for some advi

Re: More fun with Title 17 USC

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 03:02:58AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > (Sec. 101): > ''joint work'' is a work prepared by two or more authors > with the intention that their contributions be merged > into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. [...] > So, I wonder

Re: ISO 3166 copyright

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:42:53PM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote: > On 2003-05-28 20:21:55 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Bah, there's no copyright in those lists; just like there's no copyright > > in the listings of the phone book. > Phone book data _is_ copyrighted in Germany. But it should

Re: Bug#189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:19:45PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > ... > > In Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.,[0] the > > court held that a menu structure is

Re: More fun with Title 17 USC

Anthony DeRobertis said: > (Sec. 201(a)): > Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially > in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint > work are coowners of copyright in the work. > > So, I wonder, how many open-source works qualify as joint wo

Re: ISO 3166 copyright

On 2003-05-28 20:21:55 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Bah, there's no copyright in those lists; just like there's no copyright > in the listings of the phone book. Phone book data _is_ copyrighted in Germany. Best regards Martin -- Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have

Choosing a license for stumbleupon

I filed an ITP recently for stumbleupon, and have been talking with the upstream author about a suitable license for the mozilla toolbar. Im not an expert on legal or license related issues, so I'm posting here for some advice/suggestions. Basicaly this is what the upstream author said: Geoff

Re: ISO 3166 copyright

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Bah, there's no copyright in those lists; just like there's no copyright > in the listings of the phone book. > > Please attack and destroy people with _Feist v. Rural Telephone Service > Co._[1]. > > [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_3

More fun with Title 17 USC

(Sec. 101): ''joint work'' is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. (Sec. 201(a)): Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially

Re: Bug #189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps

On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 23:21 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote: Not all: the terms of section 3 talk about covered source code in very broad terms of "all modules [the work] contains". Can you expand on your understanding of this phrase? Section 3 reads, in part: You may copy an

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote: In a nightmare one can imagine large numbers of cover texts in one manual, but it isn't likely to happen. Where the BSD advertising clause produced a mountain, the GFDL produces a molehill. At least one situation comes t