Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote on 17.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It's impossible to not offend fundamentalists. And let's not forget there are different kinds of fundamentalists. Who agree on very little indeed. > I honestly don't think it's worth the time to try and placate them. That depends, of course, on whyt you expect their reaction to be. The "generic fundamentalist" isn't something Debian needs to care about, but it might be a bad idea to specifically irritate Osama or George, for example. MfG Kai
Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 07.08.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Additionally, the FSF > >is not alone by claiming software isn't the same thing as > >documentation; international agreements and most countries worldwide > >make a distincion between how software and other copyrighted stuff is > >protected by law. > > You're muddling things. Software != "computer programs". It is not? I certainly can't come up with an example that is one and not the other. > How many of them refer specifically to "software", which is a broader > category than "computer programs"? What difference is that? > We can admit that there is a distinction between "computer programs" and > "documentation", while still insisting that documentation on a disk or > in memory is "software". Or we can insist that documentation on a disk or in memory is NOT "software". Because it really is not. MfG Kai
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 03.05.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Basically, it's a free speech issue. The concept that authors and their
> heirs have inherent rights of control over their writings, in eternity
> (which is the basic concept of the system) is effectively in opposition
> to freedom of speech, as it requires all ideas to be recast so as to
> avoid the use of the forms used by anyone else, throughout history.
Which parts of Europe are we talking about here?
As far as I can tell, German "Urheberrecht" is pretty close to the Berne
Convention (we were, after all, among the first nations to ratify it) and
does not seem to recognize any such eternal rights.
All our constitution ("Grundgesetz") says about it is that it is the sole
responsibility of the federal level (i.e. out of bounds for the states)
(73(9)).
As for the "Urheberrecht" itself, the key points are:
(1) Die Urheber von Werken der Literatur, Wissenschaft und Kunst genießen
für ihre Werke Schutz nach Maßgabe dieses Gesetzes.
(The originators of works of literature, science, and art, enjoy
protection for their works in accordance with this law.)
(28(1)) Das Urheberrecht ist vererblich.
(Copyright is inheritable.)
(64) Das Urheberrecht erlischt siebzig Jahre nach dem Tode des Urhebers.
(Copyright ceases 70 years after the death of the originator.)
[Incidentally, I believe these points are substantially unchanged from the
state of law in the Weimar Republic, i.e. before WW II, long before the US
recognized the Berne Convention; including the number of 70 years (Berne
says 50). That is, the number is neither an invention of Disney nor (as is
sometimes claimed) a way for Bavaria to keep rights for "Mein Kampf" - the
number was already in effect when that book was written, and has not
changed in the meantime. I suspect it is older than (working) digital
computers.]
All in the same law. I don't see anything eternal here. And in any case,
if it were about natural rights it would belong in the rights part of the
constitution, and it's not there. (All that says about it is that art is
free (from censors, that is).)
The right to freely express your opinion is a fundamental right. Copyright
is just a law. (Which means that it's rather hard for copyright to intrude
on free speech, of course.)
Yet this law does recognize some rights that cannot be conferred to
someone else (except by inheritance).
MfG Kai
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 19.05.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > How different are things really on the Continent? Is *everthing* codified? > Perhaps it is; I believe the French (Napoleonic Code) system requires > *every* ruling to be based on a specific article of the code. Please note that Germany is neither "common law" nor Napoleonic Code. We have our own legal traditions. (Going back to Rome, in fact.) In Germany, you can fail to obey specific law, or you can do something "sittenwidrig" (approx. "immoral", literally "against custom") - the latter is, I believe, only relevant in civil law. However, the supreme court sometimes finds stuff written in our constitution that you would have sworn wasn't actually in there ... both good and bad. Really, Europe is much more diverse legally than people seem to think. MfG Kai
Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote on 04.09.02 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The arguments that have been presented that say that requiring file > > renaming is an infringment on the freedoms guaranteed by the DFSG are > > certainly reasonable ones and I can find much in them to agree with, but > > the DFSG really *aren't* clear on this point, and a ruling on the subject > > does not just obviously fall out of what's already there. > > DFSG says that you have to permit modification. (By patches or > directly.) That is violated by a rule like "if you modify this, you > must chant the kama sutra" or "if you modify this, you cannot name the > output file foo.bar". It is not actually clear to me that this is violated by any of the example rules. > The reason the latter is crucial is because it > is an *operational* matter for the software, changing such things as > APIs is exactly why we want the right to modify files. And we usually get upset if a library changes its API without changing its soname or versioning its symbols. *Because* this is an operational matter. > > (As an aside, once Debian reaches some sort of general conclusion on this, > > it would be really nice to add that to either the DFSG or some supporting > > material, since this has come up repeatedly for years and this exact > > argument happens every time.) > > Eww, no. The current method is actually better. It takes time and > patience, but the result is an ever-growing cadre of people who have > thought it out and talked about it, and so much more deeply understand > it than if they just read it in some document. This is insane. MfG Kai
Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Sniffen) wrote on 04.09.02 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are > *good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software. > The question is whether they are free software. Statements like this really piss me off. Open source software *is* free software, by definition, without exception. In fact, given that "open source" is the same as "DFSG free", *by definition*, then if anything is not DFSG free then it's not open source, either. MfG Kai
Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Coe) wrote on 19.12.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Here's the relevant chunk of that file (tree-w32/oobr.rc). It's for a > platform we don't build on (win32), and is written in a programming > language I don't recognize (indented two spaces here, but otherwise > unchanged): > > > IDD_ABOUT DIALOGEX 40, 24, 186, 94 > STYLE DS_MODALFRAME | WS_POPUP | WS_CAPTION | WS_SYSMENU > CAPTION "About OO Browser" > FONT 8, "MS Sans Serif" > BEGIN > DEFPUSHBUTTON "OK",IDOK,129,7,50,14 > ICONIDI_OOBR,IDC_STATIC,7,7,20,20 > CTEXT "OO Browser Graphical Viewer\n\nCopyright (c) > \n\nMore legal stuff, stuff, stuff and stuff", > IDC_STATIC,7,33,172,54,0,WS_EX_STATICEDGE END Looks like a typical input for the Resource Compiler. These usually are *.rc and compile into *.res. MfG Kai
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) wrote on 04.12.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 03:53:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) wrote on 02.12.99 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:48:21AM -0500, Caspian wrote: > > > > I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even > > > > about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking > > > > all over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom > > > > talk", as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own > > > > pockets. > > > > > > 2 hundred years ago someone said : > > > No nation have ever gained any freedom except > > > freedom they have gained with sword in hand > > > > I doubt this was correct back then, and I *know* it is wrong today. I > > happen to sit right next to a prominent counter example: East Germany. > > You are wrong about East Germany > It fell when the rest of Soviet block fell > And it feel because of state of war here in Poland 81-83, and many > more places where people fought with their goverment. Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. The East German regime fell because the East Germans demonstrated on the street. Peacefully. (That's why it's often called "the peaceful revolution".) Hungary was also helpful when the Hungarian government allowed large numbers of East Germans, who had fled into the West German embassy, to emigrate to West Germany. But as I recall it, the final trigger was the very obvious fakery in the elections, which made the people suddenly decide they'd finally had enough. The state of war in Poland did not contribute. Nor did Gorbachev (who tried, and made his famous remark about people who come too late). You'll note that both Gorbachev and the Hungarian government really cannot be called "where people fought with their government". >There were many > people killed, many were imprisoned, injured or suffered other way. > There was a lot of pain, a lot of evilness. The fact that oppressive governments do evil things is *not* the same as them being removed by violent means. Not even remotely. > If you claim this counter-example, I will very disagree. > (here we still remember) Maybe over here, we have a somewhat better memory, given that what happened in East Germany was of slightly more interest to us than it was to you. In fact, from what I remember, even what happened in Poland was not quite what one usually thinks of when talking about violent revolutions. IIRC, a far more typical example would be what happened to Ceaucescu(sp?). And undoubtably some people will claim that Ghandi did far more to free India than all those trying to do it by force. MfG Kai
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) wrote on 02.12.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:48:21AM -0500, Caspian wrote: > > I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even > > about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all > > over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom talk", > > as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets. > > 2 hundred years ago someone said : > No nation have ever gained any freedom except > freedom they have gained with sword in hand I doubt this was correct back then, and I *know* it is wrong today. I happen to sit right next to a prominent counter example: East Germany. > This is still actual, no matter if you are talking about > Free-Speech, Recruitment, Freedom-To-Use-Modify-And-Distribute-Code, > War-On-Drugs or Right-To-Read See above. MfG Kai
