"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jérôme Marant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>The following files have already been identified as offending:
>>etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
>
> Following are are nonfree docum
On 10596 March 1977, Pierre Machard wrote:
> I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order to
> publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that I am
> involved in the software developement so I can obviously propose to rewrite
> some parts of the licence)
Hi,
I don't know if you're aware of the recent adoption in the First
Chamber of a worrisome amendment about distribution of (at least) P2P
clients. This was inserted in a transposition of the EUCD directive :
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
[1
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My standard ssl-rejection template for that is:
Thanks for sharing that. It seems quite useful. Are the templates
stored anywhere public? Are they kept in sync with
http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html ?
Can you link from that to http://www.debian.org/le
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
> (Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
> a dedicated package.
Thank you very much for working on this.
> In order to avoid repackaging as much as possible once done, we would
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just to confirm the parameters of this review, are you assuming that any
> file not explicitly licensed falls under the GPL of Emacs? Or should we
> flag files which have no explicit license? Quite a number of the files
> in etc/ have no explicit licen
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Package: cpp (standard; Debian GCC Maintainers et al.) [gcc-defaults/1.30 ;
> =] [add/edit comment]
> 23 [ ] [NONFREE-DOC:UNMODIFIABLE] cpp: contains non-free
> manpages
> Package: cpp-4.0-doc (required; Debian GCC Maintainers et al.)
> [gcc-4.0/4.0.2-9 ;
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:44:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's
> > not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before.
>
> How exactly is a brick wall not technological?
I think the
On 10597 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:
> Thanks for sharing that. It seems quite useful. Are the templates
> stored anywhere public?
Nope.
> Can you link from that to http://www.debian.org/legal/ please? I'll
> put a link back when I remember how.
Most rejections are free form text (for the debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[META: This is a cross-post to ibpp-discuss and debian-legal. I'd like
to give direct discussion a chance, since I am rather busy and can't
mediate in a timely fashion]
Olivier, below is another comment about the new license.
When answering, pleace
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>On 3/17/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> 1. Does the term "technical measures" as used in GFDL 2's "you may
>>
>>
>
>Don't you mean 1.2?
>
>
That should have a "section" in there: GFDL, Section 2.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
olive wrote:
>
> Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML
> file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies
> (as you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is
> not a "generic text" editor.
Actually, you can't edit an OpenOf
olive wrote:
>
> I think he want to rule out formats only understandable by proprietary
> sofwares.
The open standards bit is enough to accomplish that. So would be the
generic text editors bit. Yet, it has both. Generally, when reading
legal documents you have to assume the words and clauses ar
Adam McKenna wrote:
>Which kinds of non-distributional copying are not covered by fair use?
>
>
Making multiple copies for simultaneous use (e.g., installing on several
computers).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
Andrew Saunders wrote:
>and the fact that one shouldn't summarize threads
>that are still active (I'll follow the "3 day rule" [1] from now on).
>
>
May I suggest that for threads which are currently active, you
"summarize" them as something along the lines of:
[Name] brought up [issue, w/
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we
> seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with
> both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't
> simply be ignor
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 11:17:27AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> >Which kinds of non-distributional copying are not covered by fair use?
> >
> >
> Making multiple copies for simultaneous use (e.g., installing on several
> computers).
But you can only use one copy at
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
headers in the files of his build system inside of the cdrtools package
with references to a CDDL license context.
In #35
Hi fowks.
I have been reading up regarding the new GPL version 3 and how it will restrict the usage of DRM, however during the research I do get conflicting stories regarding the objectives of this license.
One aim is to prevent companies such as Sony to use DRM type technology, to sell its
On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
> license?
And what's the scale and gradations for "GPL-compatibility" in your
brainwashed (linking triggers "GPL-incompatibility") mind? I just
wonder. "hahaha"
rega
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
>
> I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
>
> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
> headers in the files of his build system inside of the cdrtools packag
#include
* Alexander Terekhov [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:44:54PM]:
> On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
> > license?
>
> And what's the scale and gradations for "GPL-compatibility" in your
> brainwashed
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 09:15:40PM +, John Watson wrote:
> On controlling music, I personally see no issues with this. With out DRM,
> music or other media type content could not be legally made available over
> the Internet.
This is false. Without DRM, certain greedy and immoral content pr
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 09:15:40PM +, John Watson wrote:
>> On controlling music, I personally see no issues with this. With
>> out DRM, music or other media type content could not be legally
>> made available over the Internet.
>
> This is false.
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
> license? See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html for details.
The CDDL and GPL are incompatible.
> We have the option of splitting the source package into code (GPLed)
> an
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
> copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
> cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
Can we just fork from a version of the build system which did no
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, John Watson wrote:
> I have been reading up regarding the new GPL version 3 and how it
> will restrict the usage of DRM, however during the research I do get
> conflicting stories regarding the objectives of this license.
>
> One aim is to prevent companies such as Sony to use
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
>> copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
>> cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
>>
>> In #350739,
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's not that they have to be available, it's just that they have
> > to be compatible. [Moreover, JS violation of the GPL isn't
> > interesting because he's presumably the copyright holder, and can
> > theref
On 3/17/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
> > > > unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
>
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
> > > of the above-quoted requirement. You've
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using device
names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead.
Oh? How is it in main then?
--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
PG
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
>> > GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord
>> > is not a derivative work
On 17 Mar 2006 14:29:18 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
> > > >
> > > > File permissions are an all or no
On 3/17/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/14/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for
> > > > working
> > > > with .c source code, in the general case.
> >
On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright
> > law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does
> > not apply.
>
> Can you elaborate on where exactly copyright la
I would much much rather use a Free software (ie GPL) DRM program than
a proprietary one, because as we know, content providers *are not*
going to give us open content or content without DRM. Open content is
not, in my view, an issue like Free Software is, while DRM is a
restriction that the GPL ne
It also contains a file whose location can't be legally changed. In my
opinion it has always been non-free since the clauses were added. It's
not really GPL.
andrew
On 3/19/06, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdr
Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
>> invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using device
>> names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead.
>
> Oh? How is it in
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:09PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
> I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
> headers in the files of his build system inside of t
Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
have legal effect, are they?
(Interesting looking at the case of the preamble question in
Australia's 1999 constitutional referendum - the 'no' case says that
the preamble could have had legal effect.)
andrew
On 3/19/06, Måns Rul
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
> have legal effect, are they?
I guess JS is as thoroughly confused about legal matters as he is
about device naming.
> (Interesting looking at the case of the preamble question in
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord
is
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Given only the source files, writing a makefile that will produce a
> working executable is fairly simple. I see makefiles as more of a
> convenience than a necessity to build a program.
You could extend this argument to any segment of sourcecode in the
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
If that is the case, wouldn't the simplest course of action be simply
to strip the build system from the tarball and replace it with a free
one written by the maintainer?
Oops, missed where Don mentioned this earlier in thread. Sorry!
Benjamin
signature.asc
Desc
On 3/19/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
> > have legal effect, are they?
>
> I guess JS is as thoroughly confused about legal matters as he is
> about device naming
Raul Miller writes:
> On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller writes:
> > > Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright
> > > law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does
> > > not apply.
> >
> > Can you elab
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Given only the source files, writing a makefile that will produce a
>> working executable is fairly simple. I see makefiles as more of a
>> convenience than a necessity to build a program.
>
> You could extend
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> A work can't be derived from another work without including some
> piece of it
This is actually not the case; including output of a work (or
generated by a work) in another work can make that work a derivative
work of the first work.
> Is a printed book
Adam McKenna wrote:
But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument that
the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about
documents here.)
Well, US copyright law at least gives the right to make a backup copy so
long as "such new copy or adapta
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of
freedom to merely "distributable by Debian".
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Your suggestion is a red herring. The GFDL makes no mention of Debian.
No red herr
51 matches
Mail list logo
