Walter Landry wrote:
If the
GPLed work is separate from other works under copyright law, it
doesn't contaminate them at this point.
This is wishful thinking. The paragraphs after GPL 2c clearly cover
collective works.
Are you sure this is the case when the work is unmodified?
As I understand i
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:49:08PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the
>creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation.
Literally 'no', but more practically 'kinda'.
More precisely, there is a *vast* amoun
> >>If the
> >> GPLed work is separate from other works under copyright law, it
> >>doesn't contaminate them at this point.
Walter Landry wrote:
> > This is wishful thinking. The paragraphs after GPL 2c clearly cover
> > collective works.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:02:19AM +, Lewis Jardin
Walter Landry wrote:
The GPL mentions whole works, and I have given my criteria of a whole
work: Requires to run. The Debian Depends: relationship is also
useful and mostly equivalent. I have not seen any other criteria
which matches what the GPL actually says. As I mentioned before, I am
open t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Since the license is somewhat restricted I am considering putting the
>package in "contrib" or "non-free" sections.
>What section would you suggest?
After last year's general resolution, the firmware cannot be distributed
in main or contrib because it lacks source code.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Do we have to split the alsa-tools source into two packages, one free
>and one non-free/contrib? It will make it a bit harder.
No.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick Phillips wrote:
> So. The proposition to discuss would appear to be along the lines of:
>
> Debian accepts that it may in certain circumstances be desirable
> (or at least acceptable) for software licenses to limit certain
> freedoms in order better to protect Free Software as a w
Don Armstrong wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Permission to distribute binaries produced by compiling modified
>> > sources is granted, provided you
>> >1. distribute the corresponding source modifications from the
>> >
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The GPL very deliberately does not specify
> the preferred form for modification, and authors shouldn't do so (at
> least not in a legally-binding way or an attempt to "interpret" the GPL).
Right. I think there is no harm in saying "My preferred form for modification
is the
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:22:53PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Note, also, that the GPL says "preferred form for modification", not
> > "the form for modification preferred by the original author".
> Indeed. Specifying the form the original author preferred should not act as
> a
> restric
> Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
> notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT,
> according to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free
> license under the DFSG.
Hi, my apologies for the late response.
After the origina
11 matches
Mail list logo
