* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-12-04 10:46]:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:21:29AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
I suspect (though I could be wrong) that the the problem is that if it's
an EULA, in that the user must agree to it before using the software
in question, we have to force
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if they put users through a click-wrap license, but don't require it
on redistribution, there seems to be no point.
I have trouble figuring out clause 2 in the APSL, specifically point
2.2.c.
(I've seen some slightly confused Windows installers for
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Besides that there are countries like Austria where click-through
licenses are not legally binding.
It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
program that asks you
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-12-04 11:40]:
It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
program that asks you to agree to some terms before continuing.
The former looks like it might
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
What can't be avoided is the clause in Section 2
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
I could easily imagine a situation where an
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:55:43AM +, Martin Wheeler wrote:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
writing; specifically, _why_ writers write.
To those who would say Creating software is
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:25:58PM -0600, Eric Baudais wrote:
The GFDL does not limit any changes to the body of the text.
It can prevent you from removing or modifying attached bodies of
text, in some uses. This is non-free. Deal with it.
The reason for documentation guidelines because the
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:11:25AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
Anyone willing to clear things up?
Sure. EULA is marketdrone speak for a license permitting actions
involving a copyrighted work. It's the content of those licenses that
matters. Any association you may have between the term
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:11:25AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
Anyone willing to clear things up?
Sure. EULA is marketdrone speak for a license permitting actions
involving a copyrighted work. It's the content of those licenses that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3 Dec 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
change.
Well, if we're going to be as strongly judgmental as that, I'ld much rather
it were expressed the right way round -- software
I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
software ...
Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
the software to drive a publicly accessible web server. This condition
would still be DFSG-free, I think, but you can't enforce it with a
pure
Eric Baudais [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you have an interest in a flame war please keep it in debian-legal.
We have our share; we don't need any more. ;) Especially on this
particular subject.
If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it
is not allowed to be
Eric Baudais wrote:
The only text which can be an invariant section is the text pertaining
to the author's relationship to the document.
[...] Even entire sections that may not be deleted or changed are
acceptable, as long as they deal with nontechnical topics (like this
one). [...]
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
software ...
I tried very hard last time this issue came up and failed to find any
where the software would still be considered free and the EULA had
any effect at all.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:25:58PM -0600, Eric Baudais wrote:
The reason for documentation guidelines because the DFSG and GPL only
protects code. The code is not the same as published text and published
text has a longer and more established legal history than code does. If
a person would
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
the software to drive a publicly accessible web server.
I think it would be unfree, and probably even undistributable by Debian in
non-free (we're not going to require an EULA to receive a
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's say that the library has two things you can get, the texinfo
source files and a pdf generated from them. People are unlikely to
print out the texinfo files, so they would naturally try to print out
the pdf. So the library sets the do not print
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Martin Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
writing; specifically, _why_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's say that the library has two things you can get, the texinfo
source files and a pdf generated from them. People are unlikely to
print out the texinfo files, so they would naturally try to print out
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Forking a project is not the same as putting words in my mouth I
didn't say and that's what Invariant sections are for.
It's no more (nor less) putting words in your mouth than it is
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:18:08PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Then please remove the GPL from all debian packages, and make non-free
all those that include it. Or can the GPL be modified, can it be changed
at will? No. Does it make it non-free: NO.
It's a license, and
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 16:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Martin Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry,
- the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
domain. Er, modulo the small percentage of life+50 texts. And modulo
Australia, which seems to have rejected Feist, although the case is on
appeal to
Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a
non-free circuit. This is like creating a non-free
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:27:29PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
- the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
domain. Er, modulo the small
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:34PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
software ...
I tried very hard last time this issue came up and failed to find any
where the software would
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 15:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
change.
*When* documentation applies to software. Gosh, has nobody thought of
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 15:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
change.
*When*
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels themselves?
Because people might want them. Because apt-get install
Please don't CC me on list mail.
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:01, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels themselves?
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty.
Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software.
The main problem is that that's simply not true - you _can_ use the
software without accepting the license[1].
If you want to copy or
And now I wonder if License: public domain in debian/copyright is
enough
for a DFSG free package.
Public domain is not a license; it is not copyrighted. The issue
is that the author needs to guarantee that he deliberately abandoned
his copyright, because otherwise he has copyright by
33 matches
Mail list logo
