On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:30:48PM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> The reason why I am re-doing the port of these tools to windows is the
> lack of the source codes and the general disrespect of the section3 of
> the GPL in the windows community.
I'm shocked -- shocked, I say!
--
G. Branden
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:47:06PM +0100, Mika Fischer wrote:
> ---
> The UnrealIRCd Team reserves the right to modify this agreement at anytime as
> long as notice is given on the unrealircd.com main page at least 24 hours
> before changes take effect. The modified agreement will only effect new
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 05:03:13PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Yes it would be.
>
> But I have encountered click-through licenses that did not require me
> to agree to such conditions and that were click-throughs for DFSG
> licenses. I have never found a click-through for a GPL subset.
>
> I sim
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Sam Hartman wrote:
> But I have encountered click-through licenses that did not require me
> to agree to such conditions and that were click-throughs for DFSG
> licenses. I have never found a click-through for a GPL subset.
I can imagine, though I've not seen, a DFSG-free cl
--- Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The absence of the configure.in used to generate the present
> > configure script is a bit of a nuisance, but I'm not sure it's
> > substantial enough to regard this as not being DFSG-compliant. I'
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The absence of the configure.in used to generate the present
> configure script is a bit of a nuisance, but I'm not sure it's
> substantial enough to regard this as not being DFSG-compliant. I'm
> sure other list subscribers will weigh in if they disa
Sorry to bother you all with this trivial matter.
--- Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:58:19AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > Dear Debian legal, Gnu License Violation,
> >
> > There seems to be a problem with the sources of
> > the libjpeg package. I
> "Henning" == Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henning> Scripsit Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Branden> Requiring a click-through license acceptance ceremony is,
Branden> in and of itself, incompatible with the GNU GPL. This is
Branden> because it makes requireme
Hi!
I talked to the author again and he made clear that retroactive modification
of the license agreement was not intended and proposed the following rewrite:
---
The UnrealIRCd Team reserves the right to modify this agreement at anytime as
long as notice is given on the unrealircd.com main pag
--- Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello James,
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:05:43AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > Dear Debian legal, Gnu License Violation,
>
> > There seems to be a problem with the sources of
> > the libjpeg package. It does not have the full source cod
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:56:09PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> My legal knowledge only goes so much but I read it as I explained
> above, please enlighten me if it's otherwise. I consider translations
> works on their own right (so does Spanish law BTW [1]). In Spanish law
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:56:09PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Either I misinterpret the law or your interpretation is too
> strict. As a matter of fact most of the published translation of books
> probably hold different copyrights than the original's copyrights and to
> m
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:03:31PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:02:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:36:28PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> > wrote:
> > > May I remark the phrase "The copyright in such work is
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:03:31PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > "Independent of" doesn't mean "supersedes". It means "coexists with".
> "Coexist" doesn't mean that the original "supersedes" the
> translation, they can be different.
>>> "Article 2
>>> (3) Translations,
>> So the two copyrights exist together on the translated work.
>>
> NO!
> I'm starting to think I do have a communication problem here.
Yes, the problem is the law is ambiguious, and we believe we know how it's
interpreted. You never did respond to the "It's a Wonderful Life" ca
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:02:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:36:28PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > May I remark the phrase "The copyright in such work is
> > independent of (...) any copyright protection in the preexisting
> > material."
Scripsit Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Branden> Requiring a click-through license acceptance ceremony is,
> Branden> in and of itself, incompatible with the GNU GPL. This is
> Branden> because it makes requirements of the user that the GNU
> Branden> GPL itself does not.
> On
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:11:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 2.- GULP has a non-DFSG license (this I failed to see).
>
> So you agree that there is a problem?
Yes. I'm going to remove the translation.
> > . If the GULP translators changed the license to be DFSG-free, would the
>
Hello James,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:05:43AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> Dear Debian legal, Gnu License Violation,
> There seems to be a problem with the sources of
> the libjpeg package. It does not have the full source code,
> it is missing the autoconf and automake sources.
> Do y
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:31:38PM -0500, Sam Hartman
Branden> wrote:
>> It's unclear from the text you quoted whether they are
>> reserving the change the license on future downloads, which
>> IMHO is fin
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I see no reason why you could not authorize a translation to be
> distributed under a DFSG-free license. You would basically be saying
> that in all ways the translation embodied the original, you could
> use those aspects of the original; but the exact original Englis
>If the original GULP is not DSFG-free, I cannot see any way that the
>document or any translation of it could possibly be allowed in main.
>The non-freeness of the original document would prevent any translation
>from being DFSG-free, as I understand U.S. copyright law.
I see no reason why you co
Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Their own copyright? What about the "without prejudice [...]" part?
> I understand that it says that the original copyright is not modified
> regardless of the copyright used by the translation. Once the author has
> granted permissi
[Please respect my mail headers and the Debian Mailing List Code of
Conduct:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
Code of conduct
When using the Debian mailing lists, please follow these rules:
[...]
# When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
copy (CC) to the
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:31:50PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> The facts are:
[...]
> - ldp-es has been in the archive for some time (2 years) [2]
Debian has no grandfather clause. If ldp-es has DFSG-non-free components
in it, they must be removed or the entire package d
Sorry, got the wrong mail address : here again:
Dear Debian legal, Gnu License Violation,
There seems to be a problem with the sources of
the libjpeg package. It does not have the full source code,
it is missing the autoconf and automake sources.
Do you allow debian and gnu packages to be distr
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:36:28PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> May I remark the phrase "The copyright in such work is
> independent of (...) any copyright protection in the preexisting
> material."
"Independent of" doesn't mean "supersedes". It means "coexists with".
>
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:41:29AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:30:37PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> > wrote:
> > > Iff the author authorised a
> > > translation, the transla
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:22:57PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
>(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other
>alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as
>original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original
>work.
>
> Their ow
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:17:10PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> Do you mean that it's the *original* work that's under a non-free
> license and the *translators* have havd GPL'ed their translation?
Yes.
>
> *IF* that is the case, neither the original nor the translation can be
> in
Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Have I made it clear now?
Do you mean that it's the *original* work that's under a non-free
license and the *translators* have havd GPL'ed their translation?
*IF* that is the case, neither the original nor the translation can be
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The question is: Does this EULA pose any problem for Debian distributing
> > UnrealIRCd (which is GPLed)?
> Hell yes.
Why? As far as I can see, it contains nothing but a run-of-the-mill
warranty disclaimer.
The last paragraph about change withou
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If we are going to be nitpicky about this, take into account that *for each
> translation* in Debian (including manpages, GNOME/KDE help documentation or
> whatever) we *need* a document stating that a given translation is
> authorised *even* i
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:41:29AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:30:37PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> > wrote:
> > > Iff the author authorised a
> > > translation, the transla
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:30:37PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > Iff the author authorised a
> > translation, the translation *can* be published under a different
> > license (DFSG free in the case) since the co
35 matches
Mail list logo
