ose
> authored, repeatedly, by Glenn Maynard, particularly if already
> disinclined to grant benefit of the doubt to the Debian Project and its
> parterns as a result of being tortiously wronged due to copyright
> violations, might be very much inclined to take a number of actions.
> Posts suc
the code/text being rewritten don't agree with
those reasons, d-legal isn't the place to dispute them.
(Of course, one or the other does need to be done, both in unstable and
in existing stable releases--either credit the author, or stop using it;
nobody is claiming that doing nothing
he material in unstable and future releases seems perfectly reasonable
(or, for faster response, adding attributions to both, and then removing the
material as it's rewritten), as far as I can see. Unless someone has
something new to add, I'm dropping this.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hat. I do know that I see Joey
being reasonable, apologizing, and offering to help fix the problem,
so I have zero tolerance for Karsten's demanding, who-do-you-think-
you-are, you-can't-remove-my-work, fix-it-my-way-or-else, I'm-going-
over-your-head attitude.
--
Glenn Mayn
er 2 years,
> and so we're the bad guys" is unclear here?
Debian has offered to correct it, in a perfectly acceptable and legitimate
manner. In my viewpoint, (a) is not wrong in any ethical or moral way
(legally, I don't know and would prefer not to guess); coercing Debian
k, how can we
> fix this", not "Stop complaining, it's against our policy to attribute
> people so we'll remove your material instead".
I don't see (c) happening; if it is, then Karsten's complaint was
unclear (which shouldn't be surprising, give
cited are reasons why *you* don't want your work
excised, not reasons why it is unacceptable for Debian to do so. I
don't know how you can confuse the two.
The fact that you're trying to coerce a maintainer to include a work
instead of attempting to address his reasons for doing
indiscriminately and in great quantity.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s are
practically GPL-incompatible.
(Well, "embed in a more complex product" can be done with patch clauses,
which can make code reuse next to impossible. Incidentally, that's one
place where I disagree with the DFSG; I just don't believe patch clauses
are free.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
go against the intent of the GPL;
the GPL is intended to lock a piece of software into itself, not whole
programmers.
I've seen a whole lot of GPL'd code. It's awfully hard to make money
writing GPL'd code. Should I be looking for a new career?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
his discussion with the word
"extortion", but frankly it seems to be a rather succinct description
of what you just described.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ark plays right into
> the hands of the people who abuse them via FUD, regulatory capture,
> and lobbyists.
I don't consider this particularly worthy of a response; I'm not even
in school. You're failing badly at explaining how suddenly restricting
the use of the word "Linux" is in any way beneficial to Free Software.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
uctive conversation, then *plonk*.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
inking in going this far without
> bringing Debian in for at least a look over the terms.
Not just Debian; they didn't bother to consider Free Software, which
seems to be an important target audience for Linux-based products.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ng a hard time
seeing anything but undisguised hypocrasy on Linus's part here; as much
distaste as I have for making such a conclusion, I can't seem to find
any other ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
r they
can not be in Debian.
I don't feel this is an interesting line of debate; you're arguing
as if you missed the thousands of messages leading up to and surrounding
SC2004-003, and I don't feel compelled to repeat those discussions.
The Social Contract and the DFSG apply to ever
y should now
simply let the trademark go, by not enforcing it.
(I question the productivity of starting a conversation about this using
the word "extortion", though.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
free to be in Debian. This is not a matter of
controversy, or even significant disagreement; SC2004-003 made this
explicitly clear. Please remove these non-free documents; the grace
period allowed by SC2004-004 expired with the release of sarge.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
these reasons, so the DFSG should allow it", has a very weak
case.
> *sigh* It's sad that compromise has become a dirty word in our politics
> (both
> Debian's and the world at large).
It's sad that it hasn't, and that some people criticize Debian for not being
quick to compromise its principles.
I'd like to see what you'd consider to be acceptable compromises. "Allowing
licenses to require people modifying the work to identify themselves" isn't
a compromise; it's a complete one-sided resignation. It's hard to get
anything between "allow it" and "disallow it" while being reasonably
consistent ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
your papers") inhibits freedom enough to render a license
non-free, then there is no room for "compromise". Compromise has its place,
but compromising principles is not one of them.
I find it somewhat curious that people throw around the word "compromise"
in the context of the software freedoms as if it's actually desirable--"we
should compromise, give up our principles and our freedoms in order to
have more stuff in Debian!" (Pardon the exaggeration; I have in mind
the attitudes of some others, not you.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
't have a
subclause explicitly allowing such a judgement call!", but those people
are just pretending the DFSG are something other than Guidelines.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:02:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I integrate your MP3 decoding library into my media playing software. The
> > author of the MP3 decoding source code is very clear: you. I can only r
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:59:23AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/7/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL deliberately places obstacles to code reuse: it disallows reuse by
> > projects that don't release every bit of linked code (mor
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:09:28AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/7/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not so much projects that are actually around for 35 years. Rather,
> > if you maintain a project for, say, three or four years, I reuse la
> I gave more detail on this issue in the message you are quoting.
I read the message, didn't quite understand what you were describing, took a
guess and asked if that's what you meant. Saying "no, read the message again"
when your point didn't come across is very rarely helpful. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ust the problem--as far as I know, there's simply no way I can
release a work under any license (permissive, copyleft or otherwise) to
guarantee that you won't be bitten a few decades down the line. The only
way you can "plan accordingly", as far as I know, is to avoid reusing o
h I require to use your
code in mine. You don't control 50% of my work, but you easily control
50% of the work you licensed. If I want my work to remain free, I have
to excise your code from it--which, decades later, probably won't be
possible. It's a textbook failure of the "te
or maybe whistle-blower
> protections. Oh yes, it would truly be a brave new world if your way of
> thinking ruled the day.
Or your way of thinking: "give up freedom to protect freedom". Right.
Brave new world.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:33:38PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 6/5/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No disagreement here (except the implication that non-free use is the
> > only goal--the goal is free use everywhere, and non-free use is just
&g
will always remain
under those terms.
> Certainly it is frustrating, but I think there are sound policy reasons
> behind
> the law.
I disagree strongly. It's restricting what I can do with my own works,
denying me the basic right to give it away for free, without the threat
of
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> But would ever bring a lawsuit asserting copyright infringement?
His successors might (perhaps especially if they happen to be eg. native
to such a jurisdiction themselves).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:08:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 6/3/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You mean that the "problem" is that permissive licenses don't serve the
> > goals of a copyleft? They're not supposed to. The goal
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:39:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > telling me that I can freely distribute the part that is Lua has no
> > value, since I can't actually do so (it's tucked away inside a
> > binary; if I
ment in source distributions.
(Unfortunately, the name of the software, "The PNG Reference Library", is
used in the main body of the license, so changes beyond the copyright notice
are required--unlike the MIT license, it's not a simple drop-in license. It
also has an obnoxiouly wordy
d was complain about it and not fix it, they wouldn't seem to be taking much
advantage of Free Software. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:28:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
> > retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
&g
practically unmodifiable.
The FSF fixes this, by correcting the ambiguity. I don't know of any *real*
loopholes in the GPL to offer, but note that I'm specifically referring to a
real, clear-cut loophole such as an ambiguity, and not to issues like the
"ASP loophole" being "
ast, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
is clearly non-free *without* any such stretching or contriving.
--
Glenn Maynard
Pine License and Legal Notices
Pine and Pico are registered trademarks of the
s
clause can be, but if it can't, it's not the same case--I'm interested,
for the moment, in "optional upgrade clauses"--optional for both licensor
and licensee, as in the GPL.)
Of course, a license that has a *forced* upgrade clause is clearly non-free
and probably unenfor
at your option")
like the GPL's be used in a shrink-wrap license?
I also don't understand why you're so opposed to it. Why should I not be
able to say "you can distribute under these conditions; in addition, John
may offer you a new license in the future, terms which you may accept or
ignore"?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re may be practical problems with public domain in some jurisdictions,
but that aside, it, as well as permissive, non-copyleft licenses, are
certainly "truly"- and DFSG-free.
> Please CC me on any responses; I'm not subscribed to this list.
Please set your Mail-Followup-To he
e PNG license says "This Copyright notice may not be removed or
altered from any source or altered source distribution", not requiring it for
binaries.
(I havn't considered this to be enough of a problem to consider making a new
license for it, though. License proliferation, and wo
t
all in the tarball itself, which at the very least isn't a good sign of
the upstream author's licensing diligence.
(Sorry for not spending the time to review #248853 in full, but the derisive,
knee-jerk dismissal of legal issues at its start--a year ago, to be fair--puts
me in lit
lse to ask for advice about licensing
your proprietary software, rather than one focused on Free Software. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
al purposes fails DFSG#6 ("No Discrimination
Against Fields of Endeavor").
You might find it moderately difficult to get people to help you write a
proprietary license here. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've never heard of this. I've only heard of problems with the
public domain in other jurisdictions (Germany?), not in the US.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to fix such a simple thing bodes very ill
for getting more serious problems fixed ...
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t all licenses. (Apparently it has or had
special meaning at some point, a boilerplate part of declaring copyright.)
If there's a license granting permissions elsewhere, it's probably
harmless.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ible with more than
one is dual-licensing, or by "upgrade clauses" (like the LGPL's) which
are usually one-way gates.
I just point this out to be fair to the GFDL: GPL-incompatibility is
fairly inherent. I think the right fix would have been for GPLv3 to
be more clearly worded f
For which the simple answer is:
> > Read http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
>
> I have the same question around for some months.
> I have read the link above but I didn't find any reply.
> Any extra clue?
Those of us on d-legal have no idea what your q
hat sounds hard to describe and implement
consistently.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ograms (and fonts, and
graphics, and sounds). Permission to modify is critical for free
documentation. Nothing that can't be modified, adapted, and reused
is free.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ense texts can't be modified, so
you should package my proprietary software, too!" I'm not sure how to
get this message across better, while remaining appropriate to a FAQ.)
> Q: Who collaborated in writing this FAQ?
>
> A: Jacobo Tarrío drafted the initial version. Additions and corrections by
> Andrew Suffield ("how to propose some new documentation guidelines"), Doug
> Jensen, Francesco Poli (HTML mail example), Anthony DeRobertis, Raul Miller
> and Evan Prodromou.
I'd phrase this as an acknowledgement and not a Q/A.
[1] I don't use Java; I'm assuming Javadoc works like Doxygen, but I'm
not sure.
[2] I'm not sure if slander or libel are the relevant laws, here.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
x27;m under the
general impression that "fair use" itself is the peculiarity, not the lack
of it, or at least that the implementation of fair use in different places
differs too widely to base anything off of the US's particular version.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
nd we're attaching invariant sections to that documentation", which means
invariant political spiels inside source code. Oops.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of any kind, and claiming it's so doesn't make it so; one could
have a license restriction prohibiting their removal, perhaps, but that's
obviously GPL-incompatible and non-free.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 4/14/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
> > GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more dire
x27;t really object
> to it either.
It's an example of how no consistent distinction between documentation and
programs can be drawn: the source *is* the documentation. I think it's a
clear demonstration of how it's impossible to meaningfully hold programs and
documentation t
ritical example, since it's specific, and a lot of people
actually use it (google for it to see just how many).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
right notice
and have it be so.
And regardless of whether they can be changed or not, that doesn't mean they
have any binding significance, as I mentioned in my previous reply.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
say in whether my use of their work is a derivative work or not,
and these "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" seem like documentation that says
"we believe use of these symbols probably means you're creating
a derivative work"--the derivative-work-ness is not actually a
result of these tags (and the tags might be wrong).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ental. It takes
just one person to wreck the whole thread, and "I can't prevent it" is
just not a reasonable response.
[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
[2] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
entirely
original document and claim that it's RFC1234. Renaming requirements,
stupid as they are (what about my helicopter sim, "Apache Combat", and
my military combat game, "Apache Warriors"?), are a big step up from
complete invariance, though.
(At least the new Apache license
the old
arguments all over again.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e to know where I'm confused.)
If that's the case, it's a claim I'm not qualified to debate, but would
be interested in hearing the FSF's response.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ou may very well have had permission
to make it in the first place.
(Of course, if whether the work is a derivative is in question, that would
need to be established--you would, indeed, need to argue that the work they
are distributing is a derivative work--but you wouldn't necessarily further
argue that they had no right to make it in the first place.)
--
Glenn Maynard
tions, and Prophetic Patents. "If somebody
actually invents this, it's ours!"
(I'm bordering on being happy to see this level of lunacy--the further
patents are pushed, the more likely it is we'll see some patent reform
in our lifetimes ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNS
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 05:12:28AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> "The GPL license allows you to extend SQL-Ledger and distribute the
> "Larger Work". This does NOT mean, that you can remove or alter the
> copyright, nor remove or alter the SQL-Ledger logo. You must gi
st might have some ideas;
alternatively, you could ask the FSF for help--I'd expect that reducing
incorrect, confusing claims about what the GPL means is something they'd
be very interested in.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ight have to offer is
deafened by your continual snide derision, your complete (and obviously
entirely deliberate) inability to discuss anything at all civilly. Even
the subject of a certain Drinking Game a while back has a much better
track record than you lately. *plonk*
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To
ut the words can be twisted
and people could claim it. That doesn't make the licenses non-free, it
doesn't mean the licenses need to be changed (it won't help), and it doesn't
necessarily mean that obviously bogus interpretations would stand in court--
that's one of the b
d documentation (eg. PostScript)
seems to be simple proof that you're right. :) You can't draw a strict
boundary between overlapping sets.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nd to attack d-legal in order to advance his goal of
low standards of freedom in Debian, being among that group of people who
apparently despise the fact that the Social Contract applies to everything,
even *his* pet non-free software. Don't be too surprised if few people
waste time arguing
tracts
so on permitting, of course--license or not license to other people
however he pleases.
(Maybe I'm miles off; I'm open to informed corrections.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ranted, but as the paid-for work was useless without a license to use
it, a license was implied. That doesn't seem relevant where the work
is being given out entirely for free; the creator has no obligation to
anyone else to grant a license to make the library's release useful.
(For a commercial SDK, this would seem to apply to header files.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
y", and we'd have moved on already.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:34:42PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glenn Maynard
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:30:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >>Andrew seems to avoid Red Herring arguments mo
had no reason; he just attacks things--people
and laws alike--out of sheer habit, not for any particular reason.)
It's fairly disappointing that a simple request for rationale--an
honest attempt to understand someone's opinion--results in such a
waste of time as this thread, and no r
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:16:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:55:40AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > 'Worse' is purely a matter of perspective. There's irony here...
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 05:31:27AM -0500, Glenn Mayna
version is something which is both unusual and worse. Fair use may
> > be unusual, but I don't really understand how it's worse.
>
> 'Worse' is purely a matter of perspective. There's irony here...
No, there isn't. It's very simple. You called it
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:38:19PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:10:41AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
>
object file may contain bits from header
files, or whatever, but this has no bearing on the distributability of
it", which is false: if you create an object file with substantial bits
from my header file, and I grant you no permission to redistribute the
header file, the object file is undistributable as a direct result of
containing bits from my header files.
--
Glenn Maynard
y a little. (Perhaps it causes confusion about "what's
free enough" and all that, but that's the licensor's fault, not the law's.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ode?)
>
> Can two pieces of code ever be inseperable?
>
> Do you mean you don't know which bits have whose copyright? Yow!
That's not particularly hard or unusual; just merge two people's code
together and let it go through a year or two of refactoring. You can't
ju
relevant. If your implementation puts things in macros,
> that's your problem.
Uh, what?
If my implementation puts things in macros, and you distribute my implementation
as part of your binaries as a result, that's *your* problem. I don't even know
what you're trying to say
's restrictions on that code at all.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ght place"--if you're
putting copyright notices in --show-legalese, that seems to qualify as
supporting documentation.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
well-established
license), I usually recommend the X11/MIT license instead.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
restrictions in that "spirit" that go too far and aren't free.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e relatively recent developments, we're in agreement, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
they did quite well for a very long time. A couple years ago, I wouldn't
have had a problem with the FSF being able to make such changes--the
alternatives are "don't fix problems" and "fragment GPL source", neither
of which is any good. I'd have considered the F
(Apologies if I was just rehashing old stuff--a long work week made me
not notice that this thread is already a couple dozen posts old ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if the FSF had maintained its traditional consistency.
Frankly, they broke that trust with the GFDL, and so I'd sympathise with
people no longer willing to use the "or later" language. The above
problem doesn't go away, though.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rent than and *incompatible with* the GPL.
[1] That said, it's still usually a good idea to approach a license
as it applies to a particular work; it gives the discussion a grounding
in a real-life case, it gives us some upstream authors to talk to if
the license seems ambiguous, and so on.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...)? I ask only because it's unusual, and intuitively, at
least, it seems best to point to the canonical URLs for things like licensing
FAQs (but as long as it's identical, of course, it doesn't really matter.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
definition of
"source" is the best one we have (and I agree). The GPL's definition
of "source" has no obvious relation to "throwing hardware support out
the window". What are you talking about?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ains a lot.
Thanks.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ing
with the original, untouched GPL, or something to that effect). Having
to deal with adding exceptions for OpenSSL, etc. is bad enough--we don't
want to do it wrong and cause further headaches down the line.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:11:05PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Obfuscated C code is obviously not source, by any sensible definition--
> > any "definition" of the word "source code" that res
> then removes the #definitions.
I agree, but there doesn't really seem to be any indication of this.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
201 - 300 of 1195 matches
Mail list logo
