Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:24:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Agreed. In particular, in such a hybrid licence, the word this
License in the GPL text would naturally be taken to refer to
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
If I go further, and patent my modifications, to which in the United
States the only barrier appears to be the money to pay a patent lawyer
to file a claim with the USPTO, then the FSF has a real problem.
No, then you have a section 6 and 7
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 16:48, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:06:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Hm, you probably ought to be aware that the PHPNuke people seem to
have interpreted it as an authoritative statement from the FSF:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:38:48PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Hm, you probably ought to be aware that the PHPNuke people seem to
have interpreted it as an authoritative statement from the FSF:
http://phpnuke.org/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=4947
I wish I had been more
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 18:49, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
tb == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tb It's not about what's fair; they make a license, they get to
tb have whatever license they want, but it's not a free software
tb license.
Last time I heard, FSF was still
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:53:22PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Actually, I think Copyright 2003, FSF and others (see file /foo/bar for
details) [no warranty] would be an appropriate copyright notice. So,
there's a minor problem, but not an unbounded problem.
I'm just not sure I see an
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:28:41PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are an object form. The page transmitted by PHP-nuke is not the
preferred form for modification (which has the PHP code embedded
within it), and so not source. It is produced by mechanical
transformation fromt he source,
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
According to (2)(c) of version 2 of the GNU GPL, the only code which
announces anything that you're not allowed to remove is the
copyright notice and the warranty disclaimer.
There are four things that you are not allowed to remove:
1. copyright
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 18:34, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
FooWebProg is Copyright 2003, a
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:13:41PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all - stumbled across a discussion of the licensing of my GnuMICR font on
this list, last September. (btw... when discussing licensing inconsistencies
in someone's software, cc'ing them would be helpful!)
Well, I think a
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 15:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Furthermore, a broad interpretation of 2c would be inconsistent with the
way most FSF programs actually work. The stuff in GNU coreutils doesn't
generally spew a copyright
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:20, Branden Robinson wrote:
In my opinion, there is a little bit of vagueness in the following:
This font may only be distributed with the license and the source code
to the font intact. It's not exactly clear to me how the GNU GPL applies
to
fonts, but
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:42:01PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
If I go further, and patent my modifications, to which in the United
States the only barrier appears to be the money to pay a patent lawyer
to file a claim with the USPTO, then
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:50:38PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
According to (2)(c) of version 2 of the GNU GPL, the only code which
announces anything that you're not allowed to remove is the
copyright notice and the warranty disclaimer.
There
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:14:15PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Maybe for convenience, I'll use [EMAIL PROTECTED] when I've got the FSF hat
on, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] otherwise.
That's a fairly subtle distinction; I recommend changing your
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:58:32PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Additionally. PHPNuke *isn't* merely an underlying tool -- its
copyrighted layout, graphics, HTML, and Javascript are included in its
output.
By simply switching the theme, you could arrive at a situation where there
is little or
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:06:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
A program in the middle of a pipeline never directly accepts input from
the user, nor does it output direcly to the user.
Therefore it is not interactive.
Bingo.
PHPNuks is just that program. Its pipeline looks like:
web
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
I agree that that's a reasonable and canonical interpretation of '4'.
My concern is with alternative interpretations of it, given that some
people here are advocating quite liberal stretching of the term
interactive to
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:08:57PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
A program in the middle of a pipeline never directly accepts input from
the user, nor does it output direcly to the user.
Therefore it is not interactive.
Bingo.
PHPNuks is just that program. Its pipeline looks like:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
Note: I know of no legal jurisdictions that assign legal rights to
executing computer processes.
Aparently, this will happen in 2053:
Berne, the Finn said, ignoring him. Berne. It's got limited
Swiss citizenship under their equivalent of the Act
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Note: I know of no legal jurisdictions that assign legal rights
to executing computer processes.
virii exempt :)
.-=| Tim Spriggs |=-.
(||) Systems Admin.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:06:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Are you really asserting that a single program can be both interactive and
engaging in an act of redistributing its source code at the same time?
That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:36:11PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
If a web-based CMS constitutes interactive use in any fashion, I would
argue that this could only be so inasmuch as we consider clicking on links
within the website to be part of a single interactive session, because
otherwise
23 matches
Mail list logo
