On Thursday 30 January 2003 03:41 am, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original
> work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like
> that
> But what constitutes "new name"?
> If I release some poem called "Ode to Buffer O
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote:
> But Changelogs are what most GNU programs do, anyway.
Yeah, but most[1] GNU programs don't use code from other GNU projects for
which FSF doesn't own the copyright. So for them, the GPL doesn't
apply. [And this clause doesn't really apply to in-project
mo
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:21, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
> > (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
>
> That's news to me. I even
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote:
> Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant
> with (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files
> themselves.
Quoting 2a directly:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you chan
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
> (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
That's news to me. I even asked RMS about it and he said he'd have
to think about it. T
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 12:39, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
[GPL (2)(a) stuff snipped]
> I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
> widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. (This is why I no
> longer use
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
> There is nothing to stop an author making a statement that "You may
> copy distribute and modify this work under the terms of the GPL in
> combination with the following extra conditions, which shall override
> the GPL in cases of conflict".
The author c
It's strange to me that, in this interests of finding out how many people
are using his module, he'd add a restriction that would immediately cause
a great number of people to stop using it.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:13:02PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > Any hints
>
> are welcome
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:22:18PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Yes, but that doesn't bind the author (assuming that he has the sole
> > copyrigt on the program).
>
> It does in a sense--it prevents people from using the GPL and adding
> additional restraints; at least according to this interp
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:59, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Goerzen writes:
> > Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the
> > consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal,
>
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 09:17, Paolo Ariano wrote:
> hi everybody
>
> this is the second time:
> i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> > ^^
> > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> > ^^^
Scripsit Sam Hartman
> Henning> If we, as a project, decide to pull out, say, GNU Emacs,
> Our priorities are our users and free software. If you as a Debian
> developer make a decision that is inconsistent with those priorities
Note "we, as a project".
--
Henning Makholm "Y'
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > > highlighted.
> > Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section?
> these terms and conditions. You may not impose any fur
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > highlighted.
>
> Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
> what the author is trying to do is not compatible with claiming it is
> GPL'ed -
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > highlighted.
>
> Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
> what the author is trying to do is no
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round and
> round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and overusing
> cliches and stock phrases. It sure looks like there's sufficient
> interest in the idea of evolving the OSD && DFS
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> BTW can you give some examples of licences, that explicitly say, that
> whole fscking name must be changed, not just version number? Does such
> beasts really exist?
Many components of teTeX come under such licenses. There was a major
flamewar on
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: GPL 2(c)
> This clause of the GPL is still something of a wart. Perhaps a future
> revision of the DFSG would clarify that GPL software is only free if it
> *doesn't* take advantage of this clause.
I agree that it is a wart, but your solution woul
> "John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0500, Russell Nelson
John> wrote:
>> > But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two
>> documents that > except for a few places are identical; please
>> make a lot of c
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> highlighted.
Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
what the author is trying to do is not compatible with claiming it is
GPL'ed - but the reason *why* it's incompati
Scripsit Paolo Ariano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> /*
> * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
> * with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you
> * offer your changes to me so I can possibly add them to the
> * "official" version.
> *
> * @author Wayne Rasband
Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> /me suggests that, in order to avoid inadvertantly becoming aware of a
> possible patent problem, we get spamassassin tuned up to class any list
> mail containing the word "patent" as spam and reject it...
> Am I joking? I'm not sure.
I think you are
Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original
> work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like
> that:
>
> http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
>
> [...]
>
> But what constitutes "new name"?
The point
> "Henning" == Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henning> Scripsit Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people.
>> Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to
>> arbitrarily exclude software from Debian.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Is this a condition to move proftpd-ldap in non-free?
> I think the additional condition of postcard requesting is a GPL
> violation.
Bleh. It's not clear that this use condition has any meaning - the GPL
allows distribution and nothing requ
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Paolo Ariano wrote:
> i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
> author define it:
> /*
> * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
> * with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you
> * offer your changes to me
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:13:02PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> >
> > Any hints
>
> are welcome :)
Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
highlighted.
Simon
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Now, then, do
> you think Euclid held a copyright in the _Elements_? Did the apostles
> of Jesus hold a copyright in the gospels? If so, when did these
> copyrights expire,
I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round and
round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and overusing
cliches and stock phrases. It sure looks like there's sufficient
interest in the idea of evolving the OSD && DFSG in a common
direction, and maybe even making them
> "Russell" == Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> Nahhh. I'm just reading Bruce's commentary to you. He
Russell> edited Debian's members words into the DFSG. Do you
Russell> think he was wrong about the intent of the
Russell> no-discrimination clause?
R
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> Any hints
are welcome :)
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:17, Paolo Ariano wrote:
> hi everybody
>
> this is the second time:
> i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
> author define it:
> /*
> * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
> * with this source as long as I get credi
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:57:16AM +0100, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> Or how about the Meta-DFSG plus GPL (change to OSD if you do not
> want the DFSG used in this way, see another thread here...).
> This program is free software, you may (the usual GPL boilerplate).
> Additionally as an exception t
hi everybody
this is the second time:
i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
author define it:
/*
* ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
* with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you
* offer your changes to me so I can possib
Hi legal folks!
Is this a condition to move proftpd-ldap in non-free?
I think the additional condition of postcard requesting is a GPL
violation.
Quoted from author's site:
mod_ldap is distributed under the GPL, with an additional explicit
clause to allow linking against OpenSSL.
As of mo
It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original
work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like
that:
http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
"(b) The derivative work is given a new name, so that its name or title
cannot be confused with the Work, or with
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> can be gained from rea
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:39:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
> > that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
> > can be made.
>
Sorry to followup to myself, but here is another option:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:38:42AM +0100, Jakob Bohm wrote:
...
>
> Mr. Bloom has previously stated (in this thread), that his
> intent is to grant additional rights, such that his library can
> be used in free software which is not under t
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:32:27PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
...
>
> Also, one's copyright license may not set conditions on merely executing a
> program. The GNU GPL doesn't attempt to do this so Bloom's statement above
> could be confusing.
>
Note, that in many legal systems now in e
Paul Hampson wrote:
> Copyright Act 1968 Section 31:
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s31.html
I'm not at all sure that copyright works the same in all countries. I
suppose the related international conventions impose a fair degree of
uniformity, but it may not be per
42 matches
Mail list logo
