* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030518 22:18]:
Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
my work. The implementation sucks greatly though.
It's bogus because it impinges on free speech and gives
Hello,
I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
may/may not be possibly infriging on.
As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
so what should one do with this?
Are all package maintainers required to do this?
Is there some policy about which patents do
Hi Dariush Pietrzak,
Hello,
I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
may/may not be possibly infriging on.
What package? By whom?
As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
so what should one do with this?
Are all package maintainers required to do
Henning Makholm said:
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
Hello,
I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
may/may not be possibly infriging on.
As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
so what should one do with this?
That's not so beyond:
Not consistently. The GNU FDL is a licensing initiative that is
apparently intended to be used for all FSF documentation. The
traditional GNU documentation license did not always include Invariant
Sections.
In the past, some of our manuals included invariant sections and some
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm said:
No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be violated by
any third-party
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be violated
by any third-party modification.
This is
Scripsit Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building
is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or
copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.
You're misunderstanding
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
respect?
We do not ignore any patent.
Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590
to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.)
--
see shy jo
Hi,
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
Hello,
I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
may/may not be possibly infriging on.
As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
so what
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this clear implication extend to documentation released
under a Free licence? Does this clear implication extend to
literary, visual arts, or audio works released under a Free license?
I'd say yes, *if* the author *voluntarily* made the
En réponse à Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jerome Marant:
Writing docs is something people don't like. Let's be realistic.
Speak for yourself. I love writing documentation. I'd be doing massive
Speak for yourself :-)
amounts of work on the GCC manual right now if it weren't for
En réponse à Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd do it for GCC. Unfortunately, there's no clearly free version of
the manual which is even remotely recent, so I'd actually have to write
it from scratch, which I'm not up to doing.
Actually... given that several GCC contributors
En réponse à Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Emacs is a perfect example. The documentation can be integrated into
emacs as context-sensitive help. We cannot then distinguish. Since
pretty much all documentation *could* have this integration done, we
can't usefully distinguish at
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
No he can't. His placing
Good news everyone,
Dave Turner, the FSF's ``GPL Compliance Engineer'' suggests including
the DOE text in the SAME FILE as the GPL will be sufficient to honour
the DOE's requirement while also not modifying the GPL. The text should
note that it is not part of the licence.
Below is my suggested
Please note, that this could also played backward. Why should libel
or slander be extended to the work of the authors?
Huh? It's not being extended at all. There's no right of the *work*.
It's simply the right of the *author* not to be defamed. You can do
whatever you want with the work if
Jerome said:
It's time for you to start a new manual, isn't it? :-)
Yeah. :-) But I've been contenting myself with commenting the code and
documenting it within the files themselves, in --help, etc. :-)
Of which there's plenty that needs to be done.
--Nathanael
19 matches
Mail list logo
