On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
Not true. Governments can (and have) passed legislation to yank a work
out of the public domain and put it back under copyright.
Anthony DeRobertis wrote in response:
cough Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act cough
No; the MMCEA (or
Hello.
A month ago, I raised the question of whether the packages in
non-us/non-free could move to non-free. The discussion died out
before there was any consensus, so I'm raising it again.
There are two packages in non-us/non-free, pgp5i and rsaref2. ckermit,
which I am adopting, would also
* Ian Beckwith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040228 10:25]:
If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the move
(ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and pgp5i,
the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent, which I
believe expired in September 2000.
Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Is it DFSG-free?
Hmm..
| Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote:
If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the
move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and
pgp5i, the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent,
which I believe expired in
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:49:20PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote:
If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the
move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and
pgp5i, the only thing
Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to documentation
(in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to mention to someone (but
promptly forgot) that the license under which the text of the FSF's licenses
(GPL, LGPL, FDL) are licensed is much stricter than even the
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[pgp5]
Besides, the Unix has a bug in the way it
reads /dev/random that make keys generated by it non-secure.
I think that bug has been fixed in 5.0-6:
* Reading from /dev/random now really produces random data.
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +]:
Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Is it
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley wrote:
The GPL c are allowed to be copied only in full without any
modifications.
Yes, we should put the GPL itself in non-free, and all the rest of
Debian in contrib :-)
--
.''`. Y al final, números rojos, en la cuenta del olvido
: :' :
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 09:58, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley wrote:
Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to
documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to mention to
someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under which the text of the
FSF's
* Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040228 16:10]:
The GPL c are allowed to be copied only in full without any modifications.
Legally spoken, if some code is under whatever license, then nothing
of the license is removable by anyone except the copyright holder. In
the special
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to
documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to
mention to someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under
which the text of the FSF's licenses
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:40:01AM -0500, Stephen Ryan wrote:
It is clear to me that Debian has been proceeding with something roughly
like the following:
The legal documents (copyright notice, license) must be retained
verbatim in order for all of us to avoid being sued into oblivion.
Le sam 28/02/2004 à 15:58, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley a écrit :
Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to
documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to
mention to someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under which
the text of the FSF's
On 2004-02-28 14:58:48 + Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the DFSG do apply to non-software -- has a descision been made on
this? --
this would I think effectively stop Debian from distributing any
GPLed work
on a CD which conforms to the DFSG.
The GPL on
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Walter Landry wrote:
Actually, you are allowed to modify the license terms. You are just
not allowed to modify the preamble.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
Not quite. There are two answers to this FAQ question on gnu.org, both
in opposition to
Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +]:
Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the
| citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 16:35, Don Armstrong wrote (quoting the GPL FAQ):
I think the key line is this:
(You can use the legal terms to make another license but it won't be
the GNU GPL.)
The legal terms are not copyrightable; this is the FSF admitting that,
in a very oblique way. I believe the
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Stephen Ryan wrote:
The legal terms are not copyrightable;
In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all. Moreover, in Veeck v
SBCCI we see that only federal, state and local laws are denied the
protection of copyrights (in addition to the classes of works
specificaly denied
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 08:04, MJ Ray wrote:
The GPL on the CD is software.
Absolutely, unequivocally, no debate on this one, right?
Intention of Bruce Perens perhaps, intention of many others perhaps.
I guess that gives anyone the right to claim this as uncontested fact.
I think it's useful to
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The legal terms are not copyrightable;
In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all.
Indeed. I might be wrong here, but I think that one of the ways the
Law Society in England prevents non-solicitors from taking work away
from qualified lawyers is by
Oleksander Moskalenko wrote:
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +]:
Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they use
the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take
preferred form for modification (i.e., source) to mean for their work
(e.g., an electronic
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 09:07:15AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I think it's useful to distinguish between software and documentation
and probably licenses (as legal instruments) too. Licenses are also
documentation (of themselves).
House rule: anybody who wishes to distinguish between
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they
use the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take
preferred form for modification (i.e., source) to
26 matches
Mail list logo
