On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:33:29PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> I think you're agreeing with me. I can't make it a simple red circle
> or green square. I have to spit out the credits _and_ the
> circle/square.
No, the point here is that this is a bad example.
It's more contrived than extreme i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:49:15 EDT, Walter Landry said:
>
> > The question is rarely what Debian needs to do, but rather what Debian
> > promises that the users will be able to do. Suppose that someone
> > wanted to use Reiser4 on a miniature burnable CD for elections. T
I'm tying a number of loose quasi-threads together here.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:22:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> (I think we must understand DFSG broadly, not narrowly, otherwise it'd
> allow things like 'you can change this software only for localization
> purposes')
I agree that
This just caught my eye
"Humberto Massa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2 (a) Now, we should think: does Debian /need/ to aggresively rebrand,
> removing the credits -- which Mr. Reiser state are part of his revenue
> generation? Take in consideration the excellent work namesys has been
> doing befo
On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:49:15 EDT, Walter Landry said:
> The question is rarely what Debian needs to do, but rather what Debian
> promises that the users will be able to do. Suppose that someone
> wanted to use Reiser4 on a miniature burnable CD for elections. The
> mini-CD holds the person's vot
On May 10, 2004, at 17:44, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:38:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
But if you are forced to include certain text in modified documents,
and
that text violates a trademark unless the document is unmodified, then
the work is DFSG-non-free.
And we have
On May 10, 2004, at 16:58, Raul Miller wrote:
If so, what makes you think that chapters of a BSD manual which
incorporates a chapter from a GFDL book must all be licensed under
the GFDL?
That doesn't sound like it'd qualify for GFDL 7. Sounds like you'd be
using Section 5.
And, as I said
On May 10, 2004, at 16:49, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:37:49PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Not really, because we can distribute "compiled" versions of that
(which don't have all the sillyness).
Even if that code includes a class browser and allows introspection
into
On May 10, 2004, at 16:47, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:36:27PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Even worse, at some point this becomes a Lanham Act violation,
rendering the document undistributable.
If a work uses trademarks illegally, we can't distribute that work.
Actua
On May 10, 2004, at 16:45, Raul Miller wrote:
"A 'Secondary Section' is a named appendix or a front-matter section
of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
subject
(or to related matters) AND CONTAINS
On May 10, 2004, at 16:40, Raul Miller wrote:
No, but good editorial practice does. We shouldn't be having pages of
invariant sections saying "actually, FOO is now true". That makes
documents hard to read.
Should we get a new invariant section every time the FSF changes its
address?
The DFSG
Someone is reaching out for you, but youre not there.
What would you say if they called on you now
And said Please love me or I'll be gone.
Click below and find out who that person is
http://nothingbutdate.com/confirm/?oc=50799854
Click here if you do not wish to be in
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:38:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> But if you are forced to include certain text in modified documents, and
> that text violates a trademark unless the document is unmodified, then
> the work is DFSG-non-free.
And we have the same problem with "patches-only" licenses.
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:36:27PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
>>Even worse, at some point this becomes a Lanham Act violation,
>>rendering the document undistributable.
>
> If a work uses trademarks illegally, we can't distribute that work.
>
> But that's not a DFSG
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:32:32PM -0400, I wrote:
> In retrospect, the biggest problem with that proposal was that it made
> no provisions for release management.
Or, more properly, transition management.
--
Raul
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:22:59PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Quite a few of us actually have thought stuff through a bit, and even
> indicated what GR 2004-003 was going to do to ajt.[1][2]
...
> [Not that anyone was expecting the reaction that it got, but we knew
> what it was going to do rega
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> After the recent experience with "cleaning up the language in the
> social contract", I expect to eventually find out that those folks
> haven't thought things through very far.
Quite a few of us actually have thought stuff through a bit, and even
indicate
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:42:53PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> No. Cover texts has to go on the cover.
> >
> > Of the GFDL licensed component, not on the work as a whole.
>
> Ummm, what? Have you read the first sentence of GFDL 3?
Have you read the first paragraph of section 1?
If so,
> On May 10, 2004, at 07:16, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Note that content under a "patches only" license will give you much
> > worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps
> > pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentation.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:37
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:36:27PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Even worse, at some point this becomes a Lanham Act violation,
> rendering the document undistributable.
If a work uses trademarks illegally, we can't distribute that work.
But that's not a DFSG issue.
--
Raul
> >> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >>> Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally
> >>> considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of
> >>> text
> >>> in a particular manner certainly isn't one of them (even w
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:10:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> > >> **The library itself would be GPL.**
...
> But only if those are non-commercial... I think I understand what you
> want, some of the extra LGPL freedoms, but in a narrower way. You can
> make it a GPL'd with exceptions, like
On May 10, 2004, at 13:12, Raul Miller wrote:
It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
my derivate.
I'd call this hypothetical. And, tangential.
I call it an easter bunny. So what?
The FSF does not publish copies of my derived work; that is factually
inaccu
> On May 9, 2004, at 13:40, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> > (which rather
On May 10, 2004, at 07:16, Raul Miller wrote:
Note that content under a "patches only" license will give you much
worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps
pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentation.
Not really, because we can distribute
On May 10, 2004, at 03:13, Henning Makholm wrote:
It could also be Cover Texts. The documentation currently distributed
by the FSF require the cover text "a GNU manual" and a notice that
implies that the FSF sells copies of the text. Both of these turn into
factual inaccuracies if I modify the
On May 9, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally
considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of
text
in a particular manner certainly isn'
@ 10/05/2004 16:44 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 10/05/2004 16:26 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
>> **The library itself would be GPL.**
See below :-)
I just added some additional freedoms/terms for people who want to make
commercial/proprietary/closed source prog
On May 9, 2004, at 13:40, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
How so?
[A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
(which rather limits the scope of any su
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:43:00PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing
> > anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is
> > worded. It is a terrib
On May 9, 2004, at 13:44, MJ Ray wrote:
I think I remember being told that this is a normal habit of English
copyright lawyers, but it has a similar effect. I wish I remembered
whether there were any differences.
Might it be different in the effect of license terminations?
@ 10/05/2004 16:26 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
I was giving a little thought to a library I might write, and was
thinking of a few things that would concern me about its use. I whipped
up a quick license governing its use. I'm thinking that it's still
DSFG-free because it allows a choice, one of
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 10/05/2004 16:26 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
>> **The library itself would be GPL.**
I don't like your license, but I think you're right... but... You tried
to specify the license of programs linking to (using?) your library...
but forgot to permit free (re-?)distribu
I was giving a little thought to a library I might write, and was
thinking of a few things that would concern me about its use. I whipped
up a quick license governing its use. I'm thinking that it's still
DSFG-free because it allows a choice, one of which is the GPL, but I
thought I should run
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> >>Unless the derived document falls under section 7, "AGGREGATION WITH
> >>INDEPENDENT WORKS" (which requires that more than half of the document
> >>consists of independent work not derived from the GFDL
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:31:34AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> Some of the inaccuracies I recall from the last GFDL debate included the
> address of the FSF in the GNU Emacs manual's Invariant sections, if the FSF
> moves.
...
> While not forbidding additional invariant sections, the only way to
> "c
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>Unless the derived document falls under section 7, "AGGREGATION WITH
>>INDEPENDENT WORKS" (which requires that more than half of the document
>>consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed document)
Raul Miller Wrote
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
>
> How so?
>
> [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
So
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 10:56:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-03 15:24:00 +0100 Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Rememer that an "ad-clause" usually does not render a work non-free,
> > just incompatible with the GPL. [...]
>
> An "ad-clause" usually applies to documentation o
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 09:20:56AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >>It seems an apt description of how some XFree86 developers reacted to
> >>questions. They went dumb. Other XFree86 developers were helpful, but
> >>they are not the reason I plan to stop using it, so I
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 09:23:10AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Q: Where is the limit between displaying the credits where the user won't
necessarily see them, and forcing the user to read them?
Likely Answer: Umm...
Actual Answer: ???
Other things to consider: h
Richard Stallman wrote:
> > You are focusing on the definition of "derived work", but that is not
> > really the issue. Copyright also covers use of a work as part of a
> > larger combined work.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:51:33AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Your silly claims like "If a.o i
> >Just scratching the surface, ...
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:15:40AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> You eagerly imagine problems where there are none. mkreiserfs does not
> specify any font or color, it lets bash do that. Adhere to the spirit of
> the license and you will be ok.
I'm thinking abo
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Unless the derived document falls under section 7, "AGGREGATION WITH
> INDEPENDENT WORKS" (which requires that more than half of the document
> consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed document), you
> must put the cov
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:15:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> It is a factual accuracy that my derivate is "a GNU manual".
The key word here seems to be "is".
Your derivative would *contain* a part of a gnu manual.
> It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
> m
Raul Miller wrote:
>>>[A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
>>>(which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
>>It could also be Cover Texts. The documentation currently distributed
>>
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It could also be Cover Texts. The documentation currently distributed
> > by the FSF require the cover text "a GNU manual" and a notice that
> > implies that the FSF sells copies of the
> > [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> > (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> It could also be Cover Texts. The documentation currently distributed
> by the FSF require the c
Justin Pryzby writes:
> I'll mail them today. The UCAR/NCAR routines are:
>
> "Copyright (C) 1986 by UCAR"
>
> and the LZW compression routine algorithm, which will be allowed in
> Debian main shortly has:
>
> Date of Patent: Dec. 10, 1985
>
> Are the UCAR routines copyright
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 03:59:01AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 'Under new guidelines from the National Science Foundation, this NCAR
> > software package is copyrighted and, therefore, not in the public domain.
> > Distribution by NCAR does not inc
* Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-04 07:53]:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:09:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>>> I would say, we definitely need to relicense our website[1], then
>>
>> I agree.
>
> Given that we h
>> In the case of a NDIS driver, the driver itself is without doubt NOT
>> a derived work on the linux kernel.
>
>Yes, but the combination of the driver with the kernel is a derived
>work of the kernel, and it's not a case of "mere aggregation", which
>the GPL permits.
people here are not understa
Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> You are focusing on the definition of "derived work", but that is not
> really the issue. Copyright also covers use of a work as part of a
> larger combined work.
Your silly claims like "If a.o is under the GPL and talks to b.o
which talks to c.o, the GPL covers all
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
> [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> (which rather limits the scope of any such inac
Scripsit Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> TABLES has the following license:
> This software was prepared by Space Telescope Science Institute under
> U.S. Government contract NAS5-26555. Users shall not, without prior
> written permission of the U.S. Government, establish a claim to
> statutory
55 matches
Mail list logo
