On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Kai Henningsen said:
> >Which parts of Europe are we talking about here?
> Those with French-style "moral rights", I guess.
You broke the thread again! Cut it out!
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:25:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Branden Robinson said to you:
> >Aside from yourself, is there anyone entitled to interpret the GNU
> >Project's standards?
>
> I realize that you may have interpreted this as insulting.
I hope not. I meant the question literall
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:20:11PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
> > They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
> >
> > I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
> > problem, but
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:13:26AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Of course, both the FSF and Debian regard the BSD advertising clause as
> an inconvenience, not as grounds for ruling the license to be non-free;
Well, *I* don't think the forced-advertising clause is Free.
I do realize that I'm pr
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:23:30PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> In the HC (Howard Chu) and PM (Pierangelo Masarati) there is 'should'
> do this and a 'should' do that. If those are to be interpreted as
> 'must' then they conflict with the GPL. 'should', however, can also
> be interpreted as a
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:11:21PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >This assumes that the FSF's interpretation depends on the claim that
> >dynamic linking creates a derived work. While varies parties have
> >claimed this at one point or another, I have argued that the
>
Richard Braakman said:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:57:20AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In order to do this, I must maintain the invariant sections.
>> These invariant sections (written in English) are unreadable to the
>> Elbonians.
>> I could also translate the invariant section to Elbonia
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified,
> it does not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say
> that these cannot be modified.
Then, why are there so many political essays under t
Kai Henningsen said:
Which parts of Europe are we talking about here?
Those with French-style "moral rights", I guess.
[Discussion of German copyright/moral rights basis snipped]
So German law seems very good on this point. :-)
[Incidentally, I believe these points are substantially unchanged
Steve Langasek wrote:
>This assumes that the FSF's interpretation depends on the claim that
>dynamic linking creates a derived work. While varies parties have
>claimed this at one point or another, I have argued that the
>dynamically linked work is under the purview of the GPL by virtue of
>the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 03.05.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Basically, it's a free speech issue. The concept that authors and their
> heirs have inherent rights of control over their writings, in eternity
> (which is the basic concept of the system) is effectively in opposit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 19.05.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How different are things really on the Continent? Is *everthing* codified?
> Perhaps it is; I believe the French (Napoleonic Code) system requires
> *every* ruling to be based on a specific article of the code.
Ple
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 09:52 AM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>> Let's take a concrete example: apache-ssl. In particular, it's
>>> postint.
>>> It uses "adduser", which is under the GPL. It also uses update-rc.d,
>>> also under the GPL. So, as abo
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>> Wait. Isn't dpkg under the GPL? Now everything on the entire system
>>> has to be under the GPL, because you can't even get it installed
>>> without
>>> the use of dpkg.
>>
>> I don
> The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
> They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
>
> I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
> problem, but when I saw the contents I was relieved. They were just
> discussing whether
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Or, in other words, it may well fail DFSG #6, because the upstream is very
> > likely to be completely unwilling to open themselves up to the lawsuits
> > that could result from a criti
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:22:35PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis said:
> > I'm not sure if you're thinking of this when mentioning "public
> >domain", but many header files (for example, ones giving simple structs
> >and numeric defines) probably have no copyrightable work i
Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Or, in other words, it may well fail DFSG #6, because the upstream is very
> likely to be completely unwilling to open themselves up to the lawsuits
> that could result from a critical failure of their software when used in
> a safety-critical system where
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:37:42PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:33:50AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>
> > > * You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for
> > > * use in the design, constructio
Please read to the end, even if you're bored with the top part. I have
tried to reformulate your opinion and I want to know if I got it right.
Josselin Mouette said:
>>Then, I would like you to explain why you think a document with
>>invariant sections is free for the GNU definition of f
Branden Robinson said to you:
>Aside from yourself, is there anyone entitled to interpret the GNU
>Project's standards?
I realize that you may have interpreted this as insulting. But it's a
genuine, serious question, and deserves an answer. The impression I've
gotten is that the answer is eith
Anthony DeRobertis said:
> I'm not sure if you're thinking of this when mentioning "public
>domain", but many header files (for example, ones giving simple structs
>and numeric defines) probably have no copyrightable work in them, and
>thus would be essentially in the public domain. So, using th
Richard Braakman wrote:
>Whoops, I misread the very part I quoted! Yes, I think this says
>that you may translate Invariant Sections. I was momentarily
>confused by the phrasing ("you may include translations" vs.
>"you may translate").
Of course, it then makes sense to make your translation an
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:29:46PM +, John Holroyd wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 12:46, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > But why, if you found the old BSD license to be so inconvenient, are you
> > promoting a license which mandates even greater inconveniences upon the
> > end user?
>
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:53:59PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> You're not normally allowed to translate Invariant sections. From
> GFDL 1.2, clause 8:
>
>Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special
>permission from their copyright holders, but you may include
>
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:57:20AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In order to do this, I must maintain the invariant sections.
> These invariant sections (written in English) are unreadable to the
> Elbonians.
> I could also translate the invariant section to Elbonian, but as "everyone"
> knows,
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 08:45:41AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> To call a program or a manual non-free is a serious accusation, and it
> needs more grounds than inconvenience alone.
I think this is a fundamental difference between the way you evaluate
freedom and the way Debian does.
Debian
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 12:46, Richard Stallman wrote:
> But why, if you found the old BSD license to be so inconvenient, are you
> promoting a license which mandates even greater inconveniences upon the
> end user?
>
> I think you make the inconvenience out as more than it is. To have
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The invariant section is
> a requirement on packaging of modified versions of the technical
> material, and that is an area where tolerance is called for. [...]
Does anyone know of a legal ruling on what conditions a manual with such
secondary s
David B Harris said:
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:19:50 -0400
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
>> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
>> not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say
Then, I would like you to explain why you think a document with
invariant sections is free for the GNU definition of freedom, instead of
repeating around and around you are not convinced by our arguments.
The reason I have said that a few times is that I have seen various
messages here
The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
problem, but when I saw the contents I was relieved. They were just
discussing whether they are b
But why, if you found the old BSD license to be so inconvenient, are you
promoting a license which mandates even greater inconveniences upon the
end user?
I think you make the inconvenience out as more than it is. To have an
invariant sections piled on in large quantities is a hypothe
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> OK, I'm dropping this. I don't see any way to get upstream to release
> the software under a free license, as the copyright holder is indeed not
> the author, but the university.
You shouldn't necessarily give up, if the upstream author (the
p
debian-legal:您好!
消除视频干扰,诚信圣通
网址：www.spwe.com
在CCTV系统中，当摄像机与显示终端的距离大于200米以上时，就容易出现二者接地电位有差异，
当接地电位大于一定幅值时，视频信号就会出现干扰的条纹信号，严重的甚至视频信号严重扭曲，
乃至无法观看。采用地线回路平衡器，即可消除接地环路电压带来的干扰以及空间电磁波带来的干扰。
广泛用于CCTV的各个行业，如：安防、交通、铁路、电力等。
相关热门产品：远传无噪音监听器
诚信圣通公司网站：http://www.spwe.com
联系电话：010-66027364、010-66026820
传 真：01
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:33:50AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > * You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for
> > * use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear
> > * facility.
> This seems to
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:36:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Nicolas Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > *groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
> > software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
> > original answer is below. It translates
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:33:50AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> * You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for
> * use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear
> * facility.
This seems to fail DFSG#6: No Discrimination Against Fields of Ende
Hello everybody,
I am the new maintainer of argouml and I saw the attached message on
the dev-mailing-list. They added new sources but with a Sun's
License. I think it would be ok to include in Debian but I prefer to
ask here (I think it's the best place, isn't it? ;-)).
Many thanks for your time
39 matches
Mail list logo
