Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with, > > > for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor > > > should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one > > > instigating the lawsuit. > > > > So what "honest but incorrect claims" does this license allow > > that could be problematic? In the sense of alleging specifc > > misbehavior. > > I meant: not only does this give the advantage to the accuser in the > case of deliberate, hostile legal action, but also in the case of > reasonable legal action where the accused licensee wasn't actually > at fault. > > > I'm just not seeing it. > > I'm just not seeing the defensibility of "any lawsuits we instigate > will be tried on our home turf", regardless of motives or the eventual > outcome. 1) what lawsuits does this provide for that something else (GPL? BSD?) wouldn't also allow? 2) The contract does not state that the decisions must be made in California. It says that the dispute must be brought to a CA court, but does not require that it remain there. If there's good reason for it to be resolved elsewhere (which would be the case in a specious lawsuit), this clause shouldn't be a problem. For that matter, this clause kicks in only for legal actions related to the license. A specious action is not going to be related to the license. Beyond that: if Adobe files in a CA court, even without this clause a person is still going to have to deal with that situation somehow. And if the action is specious, the person can simply dispute that the license is relevant to the action. A court would only issue a summary judgement where there is no valid dispute. In the case of a specious lawsuit, that means that the summary judgement would most likely be against Adobe (and a slight chance that the court wouldn't recognize the action as specious and would treat it as fair dispute). So in the context of harassment, either the court would rule that it's harassment (with all that implies) or would rule that the relevance of the license is in dispute (and thus the dispute does not need to be tried in CA at least until the dispute is resolved). If you think differently, please give a specific example of how this would work -- it's easy to say "that's not going to work", but if there's nothing specific in your argument it's hard to say what you really mean. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 03:18:32PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the > > software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory, > > restrict the use of software obtained legally. This implies that any > > license that restricts use requires a click-through license. Their > > implementation requires strict restrictions on distribution, to ensure > > that all recipients agree to it, > > I think DFSG#5 was written not because of this, but because of > licenses that exclude some uses of the software, e.g. nuclear weapons > factories, animal torture and things that people dislike. > > and that falls widely afoul of DFSG#1. ^^ -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On that line of reasoning, "people who don't live in California" are, > too. But we both know how weak arguing on DFSG#5 tends to be. > > I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the > software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory, > restrict the use of software obtained legally. This implies that any > license that restricts use requires a click-through license. Their > implementation requires strict restrictions on distribution, to ensure > that all recipients agree to it, and that falls widely afoul of DFSG#1. I think DFSG#5 was written not because of this, but because of licenses that exclude some uses of the software, e.g. nuclear weapons factories, animal torture and things that people dislike. The choice of venue clause is a minor discrimination, and not one which I think deserves so much attention. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with, > > for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor > > should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one > > instigating the lawsuit. > > So what "honest but incorrect claims" does this license allow > that could be problematic? In the sense of alleging specifc > misbehavior. I meant: not only does this give the advantage to the accuser in the case of deliberate, hostile legal action, but also in the case of reasonable legal action where the accused licensee wasn't actually at fault. > I'm just not seeing it. I'm just not seeing the defensibility of "any lawsuits we instigate will be tried on our home turf", regardless of motives or the eventual outcome. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Raul Miller writes: > On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with, > > for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor > > should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one > > instigating the lawsuit. > > So what "honest but incorrect claims" does this license allow > that could be problematic? In the sense of alleging specifc > misbehavior. > > I'm just not seeing it. In the "honest but incorrect claims" case it requires fee-shifting from the mistaken plaintiff to the innocent defendant. These costs are significantly higher than they need be in the absence of a contractual choice of venue. (When the claims really are honest but incorrect in the US legal system, the defendant cannot recover costs. Other countries vary.) Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with, > for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor > should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one > instigating the lawsuit. So what "honest but incorrect claims" does this license allow that could be problematic? In the sense of alleging specifc misbehavior. I'm just not seeing it. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:00:04 +0100 Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Users who install derivatives ("Modified Versions") on their systems
> should not see any of the original names ("Reserved Font Names") in
> their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams,
> documents that refer to a particular font name, etc. Again, this is to
> ensure that users are not confused and do not mistake a font for
> another and so expect features only another derivative or the Standard
> Version can actually offer. (from OFL FAQ entry 2.8).
Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
or misfeatures in the font?
If I cannot distribute an improved version of the font that still
identifies itself as the original version in the font menus and so
forth, the only way to have a bug in the font fixed (without modifying
all the documents that already refer to that particular font name) is
persuading the original copyright holder (of the font) to fix it.
What if the original copyright holder is dead, or out of business, or
uninterested, or unrespondant, or ... ?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
..
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpWe7pH6bQVK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
* Nathanael Nerode: > Hrrm. We need a different clause then. > > "No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require > the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access > to that work. Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a > technological measure which effectively controls access to any work." I think this is overly broad. What about the following? "You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according to applicable law. Such functionality includes, but is not limited to, technological measures which effectively control access to any work, provided that removal of the measure would be prohibited by applicable law." (It would make sense to include language which requires the possibility of legal redistribution without the features, but I'm too tired to rephrase it again.) The rationale is that we don't care if a piece of code enforces a restriction if we can legally patch it away. This is the difference between mandatory DRM and an ACL check in a file system. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moglen's "all good faith"
* Andrew Donnellan: > Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux Some developers and organizations have assigned copyright to the FSF. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFL license analysis
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:35:33PM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> > 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved
> > Font Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written
> > permission is granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction
> > applies to all references stored in the Font Software, such as
> > the font menu name and other font description fields, which are
> > used to differentiate the font from others.
> >
> > Limited naming restrictions are permitted by DFSG §4. However, the
> > naming restriction above is significantly more broad than the naming
> > restriction that DFSG §4 was written to allow. (Earlier versions of
> > the LaTeX Project Public License required renaming the filenames of
> > modified versions so that they wouldn't conflict; that restriction has
> > since been removed.) As such, it's likely that this clause will
> > restrict the inclusion of works which have Reserved Font Names in
> > Debian.
>
> This restriction only concerns the name of the font as it appears in a
> font menu and not the actual names of the files like in the older LPPL
> requirement you are referring to.
> The goal of the OFL is to avoid naming
> conflicts so that documents actually render as expected
That's impossible to accomplish in a copyright license. I can take a
completely unrelated font, rename it to your font name, and release it.
Your copyright license can do nothing, since the font I'm using is not
under that license.
It takes a trademark to do this; copyright is ill-suited for it. (But,
copyright licenses are free to try--within reasonable limits.)
> "Users who install derivatives ("Modified Versions") on their systems
> should not see any of the original names ("Reserved Font Names") in
> their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams, documents
> that refer to a particular font name, etc. Again, this is to ensure that
Font metadata might list "similar fonts", to show in a dialog "Fonts
that look similar to ...". This license prohibits this, since it says
I can't use the original name *at all* in the derived version.
It might also have metadata that says "if you need a glyph that isn't
present here, try getting it from the font named ...". The license also
prohibits this. (This isn't contrived; I've implemented a simple bitmap
font system that did this.)
I believe restricting these things is beyond what DFSG#4 allows.
> The "in part" is really meant to cover the case when there are various
> words used in reserved font names. If "Foo" and "Org" are both are RFN
> for the font "Foo Org", any designer can branch and create his
> derivative but calling it "Bar Org" or "Foo Inc" is not allowed. The
> unit to consider here is the word and not the letter.
If a font name is "Times Roman", I can't create a derivative named
"Glenn Roman"; worse, if it's "Times New Roman", I can't name it "Glenn's
New Font"?
Again, trademark handles this much more gracefully, since it already has
well-established mechanisms in place for determining things like
"confusingly similar". Trying to replicate this in a copyright license
really isn't going to work.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moglen's "all good faith"
* Alexander Terekhov: > I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think Moglen > thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is > kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception > for user space). > > Any thoughts? Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere existence of EXPORT_SYMBOL and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL should sufficiently document intent (and suing you over a GPL violation if you stick to EXPORT_SYMBOL would be "venire contra factum proprium"). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create > > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the > > DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted > > in doing things like porting software, fixing bugs, and so forth. The > > SC and DFSG make no mention of those tasks, either. > > I think that "people who use the software" constitutes a relevant group > of people for "The license must not discriminate against any person or > group of persons." On that line of reasoning, "people who don't live in California" are, too. But we both know how weak arguing on DFSG#5 tends to be. I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory, restrict the use of software obtained legally. This implies that any license that restricts use requires a click-through license. Their implementation requires strict restrictions on distribution, to ensure that all recipients agree to it, and that falls widely afoul of DFSG#1. > I think "people who don't use the software" and "people who violate > the license terms" do not constitute relevant groups of people. I think "people the licensor alleges violate the license terms" are, however. > Furthermore, I don't think the problem with this license is a problem > with the license at all. It's that some people have a problem with > the licensor. I don't think anybody is claiming that choice of venue is only non-free for Adobe. > I don't think Adobe would want to expose themselves to that kind > of risk, so I think we can take this license at face value. Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with, for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one instigating the lawsuit. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFL license analysis
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person > > obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy, > > merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and > > unmodified copies of the Font Software, subject to the following > > conditions: > > > > 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual > > components, in Standard or Modified Versions, may be sold by > > itself. > > > > This is likely to be DFSG free, as anyone can trivially bundle the > > font with something else that can be sold and sell it. However, adding > > this sort of clause to the license, especially in light of the clause > > above, where we are granted "Permission [..] to [...] sell modified > > and unmodified copies of the font software." This dissonance is rather > > peculiar. > > This small restriction is needed for cultural reasons within the > typography community but is designed to be easily circumventable to > allow wide packaging and distribution so Debian and other distros > can include the fonts in offline or online repositories. It's really > no different than the terms used for the Vera font family which have > been deemed DFSG-free, included in main and used by default for some > time now. It satisfies the requirements of DFSG #1. The DFSG freeness of the clause isn't the point of my comment; the point was that the restriction was almost useless, as it could be bundled with a README file and then sold. From this is seems clear that the "typography community" isn't too interested in restricting their work's sale, which is why I questioned the clause's inclusion on general grounds. Furthermore, it also conflicts with the language immediately preceeding this clause, where we are granted "Permission [..] to [...] sell modified and unmodified copies of the font software", as we aren't actually allowed to sell them. > > 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the > > Reserved Font Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit > > written permission is granted by the Copyright Holder. This > > restriction applies to all references stored in the Font > > Software, such as the font menu name and other font > > description fields, which are used to differentiate the font > > from others. > > > > Limited naming restrictions are permitted by DFSG §4. However, the > > naming restriction above is significantly more broad than the > > naming restriction that DFSG §4 was written to allow. [...] As > > such, it's likely that this clause will restrict the inclusion of > > works which have Reserved Font Names in Debian. > > This restriction only concerns the name of the font as it appears in > a font menu and not the actual names of the files [...]. The goal of > the OFL is to avoid naming conflicts so that documents actually > render as expected but it doesn't impose any of the special > requirements of the Latex License. That may be the intent, but the way the clause is written makes it read as I have indicated, as the filenames of the fonts themselves are "references stored in the Font Software"; indeed any mention of the "Reserved Font Name(s)" in part or in whole in the "Font Software" appears to be verboten by this clause. > Here's what OFL FAQ entry 2.8 says: [...] The OFL FAQ explains the intentions of the drafter of the license; unfortunatly, the drafters of the OFL are not necessarily the copyright holders who will be enforcing the licence. As such, the FAQ is basically useless in terms of -legal's analysis of works under such a license. > Basically, it's about keeping the namespace sane while allowing > branching and merging for font designers and - more importantly - > avoiding a big messy breakage of end-user documents. What you're trying to prevent is clear, it's just not necessary to use a license to do this. Consider the following: Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and Debian needs to fix it. We can no longer distribute a fixed version of the font that interoperates seamlessly with existing user's documents because we're required to change the name of the font. In the case where we introduce a change that breaks the end-user documents, end-users are (hopefully) intelligent enough to realize that they've gotten a version that is broken, and go about tracking down the version that they actually want. > > Beyond the mere DFSG Freeness issues of this clause, it also has a few > > practical problems, as "in part or in whole" appears to preclude the > > use of any part of the font name in a derivative version. [Taken to an > > insane extreme, if the font was named 'abc', a derivative 'bad' would > > contain the name in part, thus violating the license.] Nathanael > > Nerode pointed this out as well in the discussion on debian-legal in > > December.[1] > > Ye
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Raul Miller writes: > On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create > > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the > > DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted > > in doing things like porting software, fixing bugs, and so forth. The > > SC and DFSG make no mention of those tasks, either. > > I think that "people who use the software" constitutes a relevant group > of people for "The license must not discriminate against any person or > group of persons." Sure. > I think "people who don't use the software" and "people who violate > the license terms" do not constitute relevant groups of people. I think people who modify the software without using it should be protected against discrimination; for example, porters, translators, security bug fixers, and the like. I agree that license violators should not get any special consideration, but that has always been a strawman in choice-of-venue discussions. (If we had a lawsuit oracle that correctly indicates whether a person has actually committed a wrong, lawsuit costs would be negligible.) > Furthermore, I don't think the problem with this license is a problem > with the license at all. It's that some people have a problem with > the licensor. Since the GPL could just as easily be abused for > harassment purposes (requiring proof of compliance for every > copy delivered, or some nonsense like that), I think that this kind > of thing should not be thought of as a DFSG issue. I and others have objected to choice of venue in licenses where the license writer did not have Adobe's history of harassing people who research or implement mechanisms that allow fair use of DRMed works. If anything, such a history provides stronger reason to be skeptical about that kind of license provision. As a procedural matter, the GPL could not be abused in that fashion, since a lawsuit must allege with specificity the tortious action. A plaintiff would have to identify at least one specific occasion where the defendant failed to comply with the license. Other instances would be subject to discovery. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the > DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted > in doing things like porting software, fixing bugs, and so forth. The > SC and DFSG make no mention of those tasks, either. I think that "people who use the software" constitutes a relevant group of people for "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." I think "people who don't use the software" and "people who violate the license terms" do not constitute relevant groups of people. Furthermore, I don't think the problem with this license is a problem with the license at all. It's that some people have a problem with the licensor. Since the GPL could just as easily be abused for harassment purposes (requiring proof of compliance for every copy delivered, or some nonsense like that), I think that this kind of thing should not be thought of as a DFSG issue. Finally, if Adobe were to start with harassing lawsuits, where they claim some bogus violation of this license, they could very well find themselves faced with counter-suits for abuse of the judicial process to discourage participation in matters of public interest. This might seem a stretch to you, but arguments have been made (and not struck down) in Bernstein v. United States that computer software, including especially programs can be speech protected by the first amendment. This protection is an explicit part of California law, and the license explicitly states that California law is relevant to all disputes involving the license. I don't think Adobe would want to expose themselves to that kind of risk, so I think we can take this license at face value. -- Raul
Re: OFL license analysis
> [snip]
>
> First off; while I am a Debian Developer, and do have some experience
> in auditing licenses for DFSG compliance, I can't make any claims one
> way or another as to whether software licensed under such a license
> will be acceptable for inclusion in main (main being the part of the
> Debian archive where software that is actually a part of the Debian
> distribution is kept; contrib and non-free are distributed by Debian,
> but are not part of the distribution. All works in main are believed
> to satisfy the DFSG.) That responsibility lies with the ftp-masters, a
> group of Debian Developers who are responsible for the content of the
> archive.
Hi Don,
Thanks for your feedback on the Open Font License.
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
> obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy,
> merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and
> unmodified copies of the Font Software, subject to the following
> conditions:
>
> 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual
> components, in Standard or Modified Versions, may be sold by
> itself.
>
> This is likely to be DFSG free, as anyone can trivially bundle the
> font with something else that can be sold and sell it. However, adding
> this sort of clause to the license, especially in light of the clause
> above, where we are granted "Permission [..] to [...] sell modified
> and unmodified copies of the font software." This dissonance is rather
> peculiar.
This small restriction is needed for cultural reasons within the
typography community but is designed to be easily circumventable to
allow wide packaging and distribution so Debian and other distros can
include the fonts in offline or online repositories. It's really no
different than the terms used for the Vera font family which have been
deemed DFSG-free, included in main and used by default for some time
now. It satisfies the requirements of DFSG #1.
> 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved
> Font Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written
> permission is granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction
> applies to all references stored in the Font Software, such as
> the font menu name and other font description fields, which are
> used to differentiate the font from others.
>
> Limited naming restrictions are permitted by DFSG §4. However, the
> naming restriction above is significantly more broad than the naming
> restriction that DFSG §4 was written to allow. (Earlier versions of
> the LaTeX Project Public License required renaming the filenames of
> modified versions so that they wouldn't conflict; that restriction has
> since been removed.) As such, it's likely that this clause will
> restrict the inclusion of works which have Reserved Font Names in
> Debian.
This restriction only concerns the name of the font as it appears in a
font menu and not the actual names of the files like in the older LPPL
requirement you are referring to. The goal of the OFL is to avoid naming
conflicts so that documents actually render as expected but it doesn't
impose any of the special requirements of the Latex License.
Here's what OFL FAQ entry 2.8 says:
"Users who install derivatives ("Modified Versions") on their systems
should not see any of the original names ("Reserved Font Names") in
their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams, documents
that refer to a particular font name, etc. Again, this is to ensure that
users are not confused and do not mistake a font for another and so
expect features only another derivative or the Standard Version can
actually offer. Ultimately, creating name conflicts will cause many
problems for the users as well as for the designer of both the Standard
and derivative versions, so please think ahead and find a good name for
your own derivative. Font substitution systems like fontconfig,
OpenOffice.org or Scribus will also get very confused if the name of the
font they are configured to substitute to actually refers to another
physical font on the user's hard drive. It will help everyone if
Standard and derivative fonts can easily be distinguished from one
another, and from other derivatives."
Basically, it's about keeping the namespace sane while allowing
branching and merging for font designers and - more importantly -
avoiding a big messy breakage of end-user documents.
> Beyond the mere DFSG Freeness issues of this clause, it also has a few
> practical problems, as "in part or in whole" appears to preclude the
> use of any part of the font name in a derivative version. [Taken to an
> insane extreme, if the font was named 'abc', a derivative 'bad' would
> contain the name in part, thus violating the license.] Nathanael
> Nerode pointed this out as well in the discussion on debian-legal in
> December.[1]
Yes, this is an area of possible ambiguity - indeed an extreme case -
that w
Re: Please review: The OFL (Open Font License)
> [snip]
>
> On the matter of freeness of software licensed under the OFL:
>
>>3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
>>Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is
>>granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction applies to all
>>references stored in the Font Software, such as the font menu name and
>>other font description fields, which are used to differentiate the
>>font from others.
>
>
> Non-free, because it prohibits accurate descriptive uses of the names, such
> as "Foolio is based on Garamond".
But the descriptive use is not what will appear in the font menu itself.
The most appropriate place to make that clear is in the FONTLOG (or
maybe the documentation).
I can see that the use of "font description fields" can be ambigious in
that sense.
The OFL seeks to preserve a sane namespace and avoid conflicts resulting
in documents not rendering as expected. Using a Reserved Font Name in a
binary descriptive field of a .ttf will not technically collide with a
font but may abuse the reputation of a designer.
See FAQ entry 1.10 and 2.7 for more details :
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web
Users who install derivatives ("Modified Versions") on their systems
should not see any of the original names ("Reserved Font Names") in
their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams, documents
that refer to a particular font name, etc. Again, this is to ensure that
users are not confused and do not mistake a font for another and so
expect features only another derivative or the Standard Version can
actually offer. (from OFL FAQ entry 2.8).
--
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License terms for latex-mk
* Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-28 19:44]: > Seems to be the standard BSD 4-clause license. Clause 4 is completely > fine, clause 3 is annoying and imposes a burden on redistribution but > generally considered free, AFAIK. I wasn't around before June 1999, > but I expect Debian distributed material under this license back > then. We discourage it, but it is border-line OK. Thanks for your prompt reply. It is no wonder this license is BSD-like, since the author has @netbsd.org in his email address. BTW, LaTeX-MK has already been packaged for freebsd and netbsd. Let us hope the upstream author will be Debian-friendly... -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unidentified subject!
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote: > What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software > license? The patent grant is tighter than I'd like; the way I understand it, you get a copyright license for modified works, but not a patent grant. So if there is any patent (held by the "Initial Developer" or a "Contributor") that covers the code, it makes it non-free, as then modification is not permitted. > https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License terms for latex-mk
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:05:49PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > I am considering packaging latex-mk > (http://latex-mk.sourceforge.net/) for Debian. I am appending below > its copyright notice. I think it is DFSG-compliant, but I am unsure > about item 3 and 4. Comments are appreciated. Seems to be the standard BSD 4-clause license. Clause 4 is completely fine, clause 3 is annoying and imposes a burden on redistribution but generally considered free, AFAIK. I wasn't around before June 1999, but I expect Debian distributed material under this license back then. We discourage it, but it is border-line OK. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dispossessing the FSF
Thaddeus H. Black writes: > I used to be a flag-waving FSF patriot, but for reasons > people familiar with the present GFDL GR debate will > appreciate, the FSF has lost my trust. My question is > as follows. The FSF retains special authority > unilaterally to extend the GPL, LGPL, FDL, etc. For my > own free software, can I take this special authority > away from the FSF and transfer it to the Debian Project? > That is, can I license my software with > > This program is free software; you can > redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms > of the GNU General Public License; either the > Free Software Foundation's version 2, or (at > your option, without regard to FSF approval) any > successor thereto the Debian Project has ever > promulgated or approved. > > My intent, very regrettably, is to undermine my hero > Richard M. Stallman's future credibility to speak on > behalf of free-software developerdom, and to set a > correct example for others who feel that they should do > likewise. If so, then is my example correct? I am not sure what you mean by "promulgated" -- in the sense I usually interpret it, that would mean that Debian would have to create the license. The mechanism by which Debian would promulgate or approve such a license is also not clear; would it require a GR? Not least because of Debian's legal identity as an unincorporated association, I cannot imagine Debian writing a "General Debian Public License" or anything meant to succeed the GPL. I cannot imagine it recognizing any non-FSF license as a successor to the GPL, although it is (very remotely) conceivable to me that Debian might encourage use of some future copyleft license _instead_ of the GPL. If Debian sees fatal flaws in GPLv3, I would expect Debian contributors would recommend GPLv2-only licensing over of GPLv2+ or GPLv3. More generally, it seems odd to shift the authority to write new licenses that apply to your software from one group to another. Why not leave out "at your option" clauses, and ensure that anyone who holds copyrights over the work authorizes you (or later maintainers) to dual-license the work under other copyleft licenses? That leaves the discretion to select licenses up to the maintainer. (As a side note, no M-F-T header was set on the copy I got via list.) Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BioCOMP License
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software license? https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf (sorry for the document format). Note that in order to download Bio-SPICE from its website it's necessary to register oneself. -- Luca Brivio Web:? Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ:234046116 MSN IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dispossessing the FSF
I used to be a flag-waving FSF patriot, but for reasons people familiar with the present GFDL GR debate will appreciate, the FSF has lost my trust. My question is as follows. The FSF retains special authority unilaterally to extend the GPL, LGPL, FDL, etc. For my own free software, can I take this special authority away from the FSF and transfer it to the Debian Project? That is, can I license my software with This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License; either the Free Software Foundation's version 2, or (at your option, without regard to FSF approval) any successor thereto the Debian Project has ever promulgated or approved. My intent, very regrettably, is to undermine my hero Richard M. Stallman's future credibility to speak on behalf of free-software developerdom, and to set a correct example for others who feel that they should do likewise. If so, then is my example correct? (With respect to the upcoming GR, for those whom it interests: For my own part, I will of course study the proposals in their final forms before deciding specifically how to vote, and I will pay close heed to the advice our top DDs offer. Generally, however, I admit that I reluctantly lean toward capitulating to the FSF in the GFDL matter. The FSF leadership is wrong, of course, and their behavior in ignoring Debian's just concerns in the matter for four years seems petulant and outrageous. Emotionally, I want forthrightly to oppose the FSF in the matter. Regrettably, however, it seems to me that the likely damage done to Debian for standing firmly against the GFDL now outweighs the important point of DFSG principle at stake here. We should now admit that, barring unforeseen developments, through no fault of our own leaders and delegates, the time to negotiate with the FSF has passed. We should either capitulate or defy without further delay. It has come to that point. The very reason I want to change the future license terms of my own software now is so that I don't unwittingly help the FSF to manipulate us in this way again.) Please advise. Also, if you feel that my analysis is misguided, overreactive or premature, feel free to argue (if I have had enough of the FSF's stonewalling, I still remain open to persuasion here; perhaps others feel likewise). Either way, respect Mail-Followup-To; copy replies to me. Thanks. -- Thaddeus H. Black 508 Nellie's Cave Road Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA +1 540 961 0920, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wesley J. Landaker writes: > > > On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote: > > > There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative > > > of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of > > > the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant? > > > > Yeah, since the dissident test has nothing do to with the DFSG, except by > > quite a big a stretch of the imagination. > > > > Not to say it's not a valuable thought experiment in some cases, but it sure > > isn't the great canonical test that some people here seem to think it is. > > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the > DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted > in doing things like porting software, fixing bugs, and so forth. The > SC and DFSG make no mention of those tasks, either. http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11413 http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11421 regards, alexander.
Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries
On 1/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Glenn L. McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all;
> >
> > This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can
> > help straighten me out with this.
> >
> > I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed
> > binaries that link to GPL incompatible libraries.
>
> First of all, don't pay attention to anything that Alexander Terekhov
> writes. He is the biggest troll I have seen on debian-legal for a
Landry, Landry. Bad memory you have. You've been "trolled" by me long
ago on boost.org.
("Gah. I have been trolled." last link below)
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/64968.php
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65036.php
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65056.php
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65062.php
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65070.php
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65083.php
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65086.php
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/05/65107.php
[... "whole" ... machine ...]
Only machine? Why not GPL a whole building?
regards,
alexander.
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Wesley J. Landaker writes: > On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote: > > There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative > > of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of > > the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant? > > Yeah, since the dissident test has nothing do to with the DFSG, except by > quite a big a stretch of the imagination. > > Not to say it's not a valuable thought experiment in some cases, but it sure > isn't the great canonical test that some people here seem to think it is. I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted in doing things like porting software, fixing bugs, and so forth. The SC and DFSG make no mention of those tasks, either. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License for ATI driver documentation
Hello, I hope you can help with some ideas and also clear a few of my questions. I'm not a lawyer, so I hope, you can give a few hints. I'm writing manpages for the proprietary ATI driver, which are included in the Debian package. You can find the source here: http://cvs.wgdd.de/cgi-bin/cvsweb/fglrx_man/ At the moment the sources miss a license statement. More about the manpages can be found at Flavios fglrx mailing-list. http://www.stanchina.net/~flavio/debian/fglrx-archive/msg00925.html http://www.stanchina.net/~flavio/debian/fglrx-archive/msg01017.html 1) One thing I'm not sure about is, which license I should use, and if I maybe clash with the ATI license. So what do you think about the latter issue? Am I allowed to release the manpages under a free license or do I need permissions from ATI or do I need to give ATI a partial copyright or ...? To write the fglrx(4x) manpage I used information I found in http://www2.ati.com/drivers/firegl/readme0325.txt. Now this file states: /--- > Please read the entire contents of this document. Information in this > file may not appear in printed documentation or online help. \--- Does it mean, that I'm not allowed to use this information? How do you interpret this phrase? 2) I want to release them under a free license and therefor I plan to choose a license, which is based on the FreeBSD documentation license. It would read: /--- > Copyright (C) > > Redistribution and use in source (XML DocBook) and 'compiled' forms (SGML, > HTML, PDF, PostScript, RTF and so forth) with or without modification, are > permitted provided that the following conditions are met: > > 1. Redistributions of source code (XML DocBook) must retain the above > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer > as the first lines of the file unmodified. > > 2. Redistributions in compiled form (transformed to other DTDs, converted > to PDF, PostScript, RTF and other formats) must reproduce the above > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer > in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the > distribution. > > 3. Neither the name of the copyright owner(s) nor the name of any > contributor > may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this > documentation > without specific prior written permission. > > THIS DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS > IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE > IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE > ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE > LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR > CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF > SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS > INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN > CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) > ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF ADVISED OF > THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. \ What do you think about this license? Is it DFSG-compliant? Can I apply it? Would you change parts (and if yes -> why?). One thing, I'm not sure about is the phrase "as the first lines". Normally the XML source will look like this /- > > "/usr/share/xml/docbook/schema/dtd/4.4/docbookx.dtd" [ > >
Re: Creative Commons "negotiations"
Benj. Mako Hill wrote: Thank you for the report; it sounds promising, but on the other hand it sounds as if talking upstream authors[1] into relicensing their documentation with a CC license will not be an option for etch. That depends on when 3.0 goes out CC's door. Personally, I'd hoped to see them already and still hope to see them very soon. Then again, we can't dictate their release schedule any more than they can dictate ours. You have to admit that our working group took the process at a leisurely pace. Hell, it took about 6 months before we even had a group together ready to talk. I don't think we have much grounds to criticize CC for taking it slow; if there's been any slowdown in this process, it's been on our side. ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unidentified subject!
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software license? https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf (sorry for the document format). Note that in order to download Bio-SPICE from its website it's necessary to register oneself. -- Luca Brivio Web:? Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ:234046116 MSN IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License terms for latex-mk
Hi,
I am considering packaging latex-mk (http://latex-mk.sourceforge.net/)
for Debian. I am appending below its copyright notice. I think it is
DFSG-compliant, but I am unsure about item 3 and 4. Comments are
appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
--
Rafael
$Id: COPYING,v 1.5 2005/09/30 03:02:06 dan Exp $
A few of the files related to the build system ('missing' for example)
are covered by the GPL.
All of the actual .mk code, postscript files, scripts, etc, unless
otherwise noted, are covered by the following copyright:
Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 Dan McMahill
All rights reserved.
This code is derived from software written by Dan McMahill
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed Dan McMahill
4. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote: > There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative > of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of > the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant? Yeah, since the dissident test has nothing do to with the DFSG, except by quite a big a stretch of the imagination. Not to say it's not a valuable thought experiment in some cases, but it sure isn't the great canonical test that some people here seem to think it is. -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpK0TpmXV6BB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
Another dose of pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys (kudos
to Wallace for calling the bluff)...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
>
> On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > What argument?
> > >
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
> >
> > Edwards has already explained it to you. A "question of law" is
> > addressed by "likelihood of success on that portion breach of contract
> > claim that concerns its trademark" (with another portion being breach
> > of the GPL), by "cure the breach" (one just can't "cure" a copyright
> > violation), by not applying ("In any event, even if MySQL has shown a
> > likelihood of success on these points...") the copyright standard with
> > presumption of irreparable harm (and using contract standard instead),
> > and etc.
>
> Wallace v FSF. REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF REASSERTED MOTION
> TO DISMISS:
>
>
>
> Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no
> bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the
> Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of
> an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint,
> the contract controls."
>
>
Reactions to that latest FSF' piece of impeccable lawyering:
Re: FSF says that the contract controls
by: day5done
The lawyers for the FSF must'a been smokin' the good stuff from Merkey's
stash.
Everyone who is neither blind nor an idiot knows for certain that the
GPL is a *LICENSE NOT A CONTRACT* -- Richard Stallman has clarified that
fact at least a hundred times.
Dollar to a dime Eben Moglen fires the lame asses over at the ICE MILLER
law firm real soon.
-
GPL Hollaaring
by: walter_oak_night
ICE on automatic aggregation of software copyrights
In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License."
Linux kernel v. application
And as the copyright notice in the kernel sources says, user
applications are not subject to the GPL.
Supported by Hollaar:
With dynamically-linked libraries, the application program being
distributed is no longer a compilation that includes the library.
Because the library is not being distributed with the application
program, no permission is needed from the copyright owner of the library
for the distribution to users. Users must, of course, be authorized to
use the library, but if they are owners of a copy of the library, under
Section 117 they can make any adaptations of the library necessary to
use it with the application program.
FSF GPL FAQ
I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the
portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the
source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these
versions would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't
the GPL permit this? ….
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc
FAQ as Fact
In 2002, a company named Global Technologies Ltd (now defunct) had
ported some 4.5M lines of GPL/BSD and other open source code to Windows
using AT&T Uwin. They claimed less than 500 lines had to be changed and
all changes went back to original authors. The binaries were distributed
from their web site, but one day disappeared. My $50.00 check for a CD
distribution of the binaries and source, which indicated $25 gift to
FSF, was returned with a letter explaining Moglan threatened legal
action for violating the GPL because the code was linked with AT&T
uwin's proprietary posix.dll that provided the POSIX interface on
windows.
Hollaar disagress
Some have claimed that an application program that needs a library for
its operation is a derivative work of that library. They take that
position because the application program is "based on" the library
because it was written to use the subroutines and other aspects of the
library. Such a position is misplaced
No other conclusion makes sense. If it were not the case, then any
program using the applications program interfaces (APIs) of an operating
system could be considered a derivative work of that operating system.
And, under the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, the
copyright owner of an operating system such as Microsoft Windows could
control who was allowed to write programs for that operating system.
What was that automatic rejection again?
-
-
Re: GPL Hollaaring FAQ or Fiction
by: walter_oak_night
Re: Hi to All!
On 1/28/06, INFONOVA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! Hi! Educated by Prof. Pedro? regards, alexander.
Re: GPL and Court Procedure (was Re: Adobe open source ...)
On 1/28/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Like, say, "ordered set of instructions" to mean "computer program" Hey Prof., how about "a series of instructions"? > > > If you won't write something that means > > anything, is there some reason I should continue replying? > > Feed the troll? Go ahead. regards, alexander.
Re: Adobe open source license -- is this licence free?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative >of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of >the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant? Well, yes. It's just something that a few people here invented, but you would need to stretch the DFSG a lot to support it. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
