On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 09:54:39PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> You don't give me much time to reply.
Yes; disingenuous, calculated, misleading remarks do take longer to cook up
than the honest truth.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux |It tastes go
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
> except itself
That is blatantly false, and I find it hard to believe RMS would have
uttered any such statement.
The MIT/X Consortium and 3-clause BSD licens
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 11:52:39AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> In real life, the vast majority of the people will contribute the patches
> back
> under both licenses.
In many cases, they don't really have much choice; changes on the scale of
bugfixes or small feature enhancements are easily de
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:49:54PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> But if you add BSD code to someone else's GPL code, you could be in
> trouble since the BSD license adds an additional requirement to
> distribute an additional warranty and permission statement.
That is only true if:
1) You're talk
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
>...
> plugger is in contrib for a reason. ns-plugin-sdk can't be distributed. I
> have a local deb of it, but I can't send it anywhere, as it has no copyright
> at all, and netscape has been deaf to my inquiries.
>...
plugger is under the GPL but linked w
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
>
> Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, I guess it's a couple of things. First I feel betrayed. Given
> > all the comments I've received about Stallman's reasonably
> > well-publicized philosophy I suppose I have no one to blame but myself.
>
> Nob
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
> I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
> only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for them
> (or so I thought). If you want you
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> > Nobody thinks (but you) that the GPL grants to people the right to
> > break into a computer. If you feel betrayed, it's by a
> > misunderstanding; at worst, it's an ambiguous sentence which you read
> > incorrectly
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul
I'm forwarding this message to debian-legal [let's see if I can get the
right list, this time] because in a year when I look back and want to
find it I'm going to want to find it in the debian-legal archives.
[Apologies to the folks over on debian-devel *wince*.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
- Forwarde
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 04:48:25AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> > Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
> > except itself
>
> That is blatantly false, and I find it hard to believe RMS would ha
Raul Miller wrote:
> And, since your entire rant seems to be based on the idea that laws
> are being broken, I think it's up to you to come up with the
> details.
I agree. I will try e-mailing him. The message is at the bottom.
I sent it a few seconds ago.
Paul Serice
===
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> > the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
> > only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the licens
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 04:05:32PM +, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
>
> ) Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
> ) >
> ) > On Tue, 16 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
> ) >
> ) No matter how broadly you read the "fair use" exception, it does not
> ) cover Stallman's actions. "F
On 18-May-00, 04:30 (CDT), Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> >...
> > plugger is in contrib for a reason. ns-plugin-sdk can't be distributed. I
> > have a local deb of it, but I can't send it anywhere, as it has no copyright
> > at all, and nets
Not sure what is meant by the first paragraph. U.S. copyright law does have
a de minimis rule but that rule is very open-ended as you indicated. There
is no fixed guideline on what is too insignificant for copyright protection.
It is a case-by-case analysis. It would be up to that someone who ch
None of this makes a bit of difference. You are making a very obvious
error by failing to realize that different authors may elect to put their
works under GPL with different intent and different motivation. You are
reading too much into the mental process behind the author's action, while
what i
Do not put too much emphasis on the "fair use" concept. It is
deliberately very vague, much like the concept of "due process of law."
Exactly what it means in any particular situation can be very hard to pin
down without actually litigating the issue.
I would argue that there are extreme cases
> I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> the GPL was about respecting the work of other people.
The GPL is about establishing and defending the freedom to share and
change published software--about respecting community and cooperation.
The way to respect a
18 matches
Mail list logo
