On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 20:08 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[argument of program vs. software]
> > If you are only looking at the DFSG, you are missing the point. The
> > p
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
> > want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most
> > certainly _is_ new, a
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
> want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most
> certainly _is_ new, and is completely bogus. As I said, propose a GR
> to change the wording s/
On 7/28/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean "freely available"?
> Should I request a copy, which license would you send it under?
None whatsoever. :-) Just like sending you a paper copy in the mail,
with no obligation of confidentiality as such; the copy is yours, fe
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:00:29 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
> >The GR did not change the wording of the DFSG at all. However, it's
> >clear that a significant shift took place in SC interpretation, from
> >a foggy definition of "program" to a more dogmatic "everything w
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:04:34 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Excuse me for asking, but why is this monograph not freely
> > available? Surely, as a non-lawyer, you have no hope of profiting
> > from it, and having a succint, linkable statem
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:20:18 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> Personally, I think that we can make this distinction, but actually,
> we shouldn't, at least for technical documentation which describes how
> a program works. If we change the program, we sometimes need to
> change the documentation. I
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the "stop
> distribution" penalty was not used in part because Progress
> didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed
> by this penalty. And, Progress had agreed in court to release
> th
On 7/28/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You Are Wrong. Under US law, this is Contributory Infringement, which
> > carries a full array of jail terms. SCOTUS just upheld it against
> > Grokster a few weeks ago. Providing an automated syst
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that the point is that people would be going to jail for
> violating the GPL.
"Violating the GPL" doesn't mean anything. The GPL is not a statute.
It's just an offer of contract. The only way to "enforce" it is for a
party with
** Michael Poole ::
> Potential penalties are irrelevant to my question. You assume a
> priori that such linking is a violation of the GPL. My question was
> why that assumption is valid. As I explained above, his citation of
> case law does not fit the facts.
The only good answer people in d-
Raul Miller writes:
> On 7/28/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What statute or case law supports this position? Comparison to
>> Grokster et al doesn't hold, for reasons that should have been
>> obvious: The GPL explicitly allows a user to use and modify code in
>> any way the user
** Raul Miller ::
> On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
> > automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
> >
> > #include
> > int main(int argc, char** argv) {
> > pri
On 7/27/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether or not that agreement purports to bind a developer in ways
> that copyright law does not, there are limits to what terms a court
> will permit in a contract of adhesion.
Agreed.
Then again, the penalties I'd expect the court to
On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
> automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
>
> #include
> int main(int argc, char** argv) {
> printf("Hello\n");
> return 0;
>
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What statute or case law supports this position? Comparison to
> Grokster et al doesn't hold, for reasons that should have been
> obvious: The GPL explicitly allows a user to use and modify code in
> any way the user sees appropriate; section
O Xoves, 28 de Xullo de 2005 ás 16:19:02 +0200, Florian Weimer escribía:
> > I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
> > want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes.
> Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the
> assumption under whic
On 7/28/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]:
> > On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd prefer to approach this issue from a different direction.
> >
> > The point behind the DFSG is that we need to be able to solve
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Anyway, the person who "recombines" the "film" and "track", in the
> > case of dynamic linking, is the *USER*, in the process of using the
> > program, and copyrights protection do not apply at that moment, as
> > per 17USC.
> You Are Wrong. Under US
* Steve McIntyre:
>>Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the
>>assumption under which debian-legal operates in general? With a few
>>practical exceptions, of course (license texts, public key
>>certificates, etc.), but the general rule seems to be followed.
>
> What?
>
> I'm a
* Andreas Barth:
>> > I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
>> > want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes.
>
>> Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the
>> assumption under which debian-legal operates in general?
>
> Actually
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:19:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Steve McIntyre:
>
>>>The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
>>>current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
>>>as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is no
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050728 16:19]:
> * Steve McIntyre:
> >>The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
> >>current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
> >>as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a
> >>
* Steve McIntyre:
>>The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
>>current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
>>as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a
>>real problem here (beyond the invariant section business) -- th
Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Andreas Barth:
>
>>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>>> be interpreted as "software".
>>
>> I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as
>> declared goal to replace any such places with the "real meaning", and
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:08:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Steve McIntyre:
>
>> Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what
>> "software" means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of "program"
>> too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about
>> "p
* Steve McIntyre:
> Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what
> "software" means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of "program"
> too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about
> "program" are unclear and should say "software", then propose a GR to
>
* Andreas Barth:
>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>> be interpreted as "software".
>
> I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as
> declared goal to replace any such places with the "real meaning", and
> this was not touched, it has
* Francesco Poli:
> But if you propose to disable DFSG#2 for non-programs, you have to
> propose a criterion to tell programs and non-programs apart.
> IOW, you must be able to tell when DFSG#2 must be applied and when it
> may be ignored...
It's enough if we are sufficiently confident that such
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
>> Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
>> automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
>>
>> #include
>> int main(int argc, char** argv) {
>>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
> Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
> automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
>
> #include
> int main(int argc, char** argv) {
> printf("Hello\n");
> retu
* Achim Bohnet:
> [please cc me, i'm not subscribed to d-l]
> Hi,
> new digikamimageplugin > 0.7.3 release
>
> a) contains now a header file that uses the CeCILL license.
> http://www.cecill.info/index.en.html
> http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
>
> b) this header file is include
32 matches
Mail list logo
