Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

2003-12-23 Thread Walter Landry
Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote: > > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote: > >> Thus, when distributing binaries compiled from sources, the > >> compilation is under Section 2 and the distributi

Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

2003-12-23 Thread Alexander Cherepanov
17-Dec-03 07:26 Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Emphasis added, of course. So, when I write a plugin I can't claim to > have created a compilation of the plugin and the host, because the > plugin is not preexisting. > Following the readme file's statement that A is a plugin for HOST > certainly does n

Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

2003-12-23 Thread Alexander Cherepanov
16-Dec-03 16:07 Joe Moore wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis said: >> The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the >> copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know >> what they'd do then. > I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that "The Work" > d

Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

2003-12-23 Thread Alexander Cherepanov
15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote: > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote: >> > If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you >> > can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a >> > particular kind of m

Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

2003-12-23 Thread Alexander Cherepanov
16-Dec-03 13:34 Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote: >> The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start >> doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a >> license to trump each other? > If one section of a le

Re: Bug#224866: kanjidic: Kanjidic is not DFSG-free

2003-12-23 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> First, since the frequency can be construed as a fact, and therefore >> is not copyrightable work of authorship, I'm not particularly >> concerned by this. [If there is a jurisdiction which does construe >> mer

Re: Bug#224866: kanjidic: Kanjidic is not DFSG-free

2003-12-23 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Ludovic Drolez wrote: > Moreover, Jim Breen, the author of kanjidic, explained me that Jack > Halpern's SKIP copyright statement is a "dead letter" (and kanjidic > file has been used by freeware and shareware for a decade without > Jack Halpern making any noise about it). He'll

Re: I'll contact upstream

2003-12-23 Thread Simon Law
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 08:06:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > > >Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo > > >through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of

Re: Bug#224866: kanjidic: Kanjidic is not DFSG-free

2003-12-23 Thread Ludovic Drolez
Dafydd Harries wrote: > This appears to me to be a clear violation of policy. The problem with SKIP codes has been fixed in kanjidic 2003.07.21-1. See the changelog: kanjidic (2003.07.21-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release * New license that allows modifications and free redistrib

Re: I'll contact upstream

2003-12-23 Thread Florian Weimer
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > >Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo > >through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of a > >(specific) Texinfo interpreter? > > Because that's not what we're doi

Re: I'll contact upstream

2003-12-23 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote: Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of a (specific) Texinfo interpreter? Because that's not what we're doing. We're running texinfo.tex and foo.tex

Re: I'll contact upstream

2003-12-23 Thread Florian Weimer
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > I hope we get as solution soon; however, at the moment, this appears to > be quite a valid bug. Using even marginally cautious standard of what > constitutes "a work based on [the Program] under Section 2 [of the > GPL]", the manuals qualify. Huh? Why do you think

I'll contact upstream

2003-12-23 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
reopen 183860 tags 183860 moreinfo thanks control I've just send a message to RMS (cc'd to this bug) asking for clarification. I hope we get as solution soon; however, at the moment, this appears to be quite a valid bug. Using even marginally cautious standard of what constitutes "a work bas

Re: Bug#224866: kanjidic: Kanjidic is not DFSG-free

2003-12-23 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >"The commercial utilization of the frequency numbers is prohibited > >without written permission from Jack Halpern. Use by individuals and > >small groups for reference and research purposes is permitted, on > >condition that acknowledgement of

Re: Bug#224866: kanjidic: Kanjidic is not DFSG-free

2003-12-23 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Dafydd Harries wrote: > Kanjidic's copyright file states (lines 208-212): > >"The commercial utilization of the frequency numbers is prohibited >without written permission from Jack Halpern. Use by individuals and >small groups for reference and research purposes i