Hello,
I'm just forwading you the annoucement of the demo, but I would like to
know if webmasters of www.debian.org can consider to participate to the
online demonstration (see http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/BigDemo27aug and
http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html, and my homepage for more
in
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:52:54PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
...
>
> > > The GPL refers to the GPL "as published by the Free Software
> > > Foundation", but you're not saying here what counts as a version of
> > > Perl. For example, if someone creates a public-domain implementation
> > > of s
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:38:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The same text appears in the GPL.
>
> If you're really going to argue that the code in question cannot "be
> reasonably considered independent", the original license clause is a
> no-op. Why are you worried about what the license s
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:02:53AM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No, US law does not recognize the concept of a creator's "moral rights"
> > with respect to *any* work, software or not.
> It's not very popular, but since the US became a party to the
> Berne
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:08:30PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional
> > > restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? Otherwise, I don't see how
> > > you can claim it is compatible.
> > "These requirements apply to the modified work
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:22:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
> > > > in question has b
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:02:59PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
> > > > in question has
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
> > > in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc
> > > source tree, pr
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> A distributes a program developed by A based on Sun RPC to B. B
>> cannot turn around distribute the program to C unless they repackage
>> it as a product or program developed by B.
>
> This isn't the case: A may "license or distribute it to anyone [..]
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
> > > in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc
> > > source tree, pr
Fedor Zuev wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>Right, and invariant sections can be useful for software. So what?
>
> Goal of the free software movement, as declared by FSF :-)
>is a completely replace proprietary software world.
>
> Here you want to state that some us
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
> > in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc
> > source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL,
>
> It's not appropriate
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:33:12PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"DFSG-free Debian bits"
> >
> > Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> However as it stands, the license passes the DFSG at least as
> well as, eg, the Artistic license does.
I humbly submit that only the GPL and BSD licenses pass the DFSG
as well as the Artistic license does.
10. Example Licenses
Your message dated Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:50:19 +1000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsi
Hello,
> This explanation is unsatisfactory. I think that the Sun RPC code is
> non-free, and I want an opinion from debian-legal.
The Sun RPC code is DFSG-free, and has been for eons. This bug is, again,
closed with this message. Addressing particular concerns raised:
> >
John Goerzen wrote:
I suggest that even if the GFDL did not allow modification of the invariant
sections, if it at least allowed removal of them, we would be in much better
This make no sence. It is the same as not to have invariant sections at
all.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, US law does not recognize the concept of a creator's "moral rights"
> with respect to *any* work, software or not.
It's not very popular, but since the US became a party to the
Berne Convention they have to recognize moral rights. And it's
in 17 US Code 106A.
http:/
19 matches
Mail list logo
