On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 04:38:06PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
It's not obvious that this would be an improvement which benefits users.
Which is not the same claim as it doesn't help our users.
--
Raul
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, if that seems nonsensical to you, you're right -- or, at least,
that scenario seems rather nonsensical to me. Debian currently doesn't
represent the kind of market which could lead to this kind of situation.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:44:36PM
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:23:52PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
And if the device has an eprom, then for the driver to work, you have to find
and install an eprom containing a copy of the code.
Which device is this?
(The eprom is harder to lose, of course, so it's *usually* already
installed,
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
And that is a functional difference: in one case the owner of the
device who has downloaded some Debian software has to go get some
other software and load it onto his machine; in the other case he
doesn't.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:46:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Oh, come off it. The social contract says:
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free
in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
promise that the Debian system and all its
Ignoring Brian's strange arguments about rodents, I can see no cases
where the user has more freedom if the firmware comes from an eeprom
rather than from a CD.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
He can sell the device with the firmware in it,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at
It's different because, when the firmware is built into the device,
the person who has the device has the firmware.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 05:41:31PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
The person who has the device doesn't neceessarily have the firmware, because
the firmware can be removed.
The
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 06:58:05PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
For other -legal contributors, this involves a comedy text filter
(kraut I think) which emits Sieg Heil in certain conditions.
The obvious google search with the qualifier site:de seems to indicate
that the presence of these two words is
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:45:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Out of curiosity, how far does this extend? Would the same apply if
there was a list-archive set of packages in Debian, containing this
message (Sieg Heil!), or an important-bug-report-archive, containing
the text of #277794, or a
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 05:07:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It seems unlikely that work (A) which GPLed but is not trademarked
abiword would be more or less DFSG-free than work (B) which is GPLed
but is not trademarked AbiWord.
Huh?
It seems unlikely that:
work (A) which [is]
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:38:39PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Let us call them the package maintainer and patch contributor.
It's a bit more complicated than that. We have seven people listed
in the AUTHORS file for xchat 1.2.0, with many others mentioned in
a footnote. Most of the sources
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
a registration.
After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
the shareware is a distribution charge, which is allowed under the GPL.
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:19:41PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Note: source is GPL, but for windoze binaries it is *required*
a registration.
After looking at this for a bit, and thinking about it, it looks like
the shareware is a distribution charge
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:22:41PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
* I noticed that there is at least one thing that can be done in the
second hypothesis, but not in the first one: ...
If it matters -- if the trademark has some major significance beyond
being the product in question -- then the
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:04:31AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote:
Sorry for lookout mangling my cut-n-paste - this isn't quite a proper
reply ...
And the guy who admins this system claims I should be able to
email you now... so hopefully you won't have to do much more of
that.
Did you look at
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:09:29AM -0400, I wrote:
Instead, it's pointing out that you can't prohibit employees [for
example, ad subsidiaries] from distributing it to your competitors or
Er, I meant at, not ad.
--
Raul
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:23:11AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote:
But as I see it, they (QM) are adding an extra restriction, as
proscribed by the GPL (clauses 6 and 7).
If you distribute to subsidiaries, you may not stop them distributing
to the world. But the GPL explicitly recognises
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 01:51:29PM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote:
Sorry, my goof. I shouldn't be sloppy. It's the FSF faq. Is making and
using multiple copies within one organization or company distribution?
. As I read that, it's simply saying that the you in the FAQ can
be a company, and
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:55:30PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
But is the original unpurged work DFSG-free?
I'm not sure that's the right question.
Remember, we interpret the DFSG based on the spirit of the rules, rather
than the letter.
I think the right question is: how should we handle
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:23:33PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I strongly suggest that you read the following two web pages:
http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/index.htm
and the accompanying faq:
http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
Is there any
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:36:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
[4] GPL means GNU Public license and all sources are readily
available under the GPL. In this case, the author of those pages is
probably not competent.
Actually, the pages at those urls look fine -- it's either myself or
the other
Note: I've left Anthony Youngman's email address in the headers,
but I seem to have a local problem where email to Anthony bounces.
[I can work around that, using telnet, but it's a pain.]
quote
I strongly suggest that you read the following two web pages:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:36:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Is there any reason to believe that by GPL they mean the GNU Public
License?
The G in GPL is General, not GNU. (I'm sure you know this, but
you said GNU Public
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:44:46PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
It's misleading.
Yes.
There are lawyers who will express things in a misleading fashion if
they think that's in the best interests of their clients, and if they
think they will not get in legal trouble for doing so.
--
Raul
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:48:09 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
But not basic logic about permission to modify. Instead, basic
logic about what do trademark restrictions mean.
I don't see that trademark prohibitions can affect whether a GPLed
program is DFSG free or not.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, that's not true.
It seems to me -- at least in the context of what Debian distributes and
calls Main -- that
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
Software.
That is the title of that section.
If you bother to read it, you'll see We will never make the system
require the use of a non-free component.
It
Josh Triplett wrote:
The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the software is a significant
barrier to modification.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 01:23:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
stating that *you* changed the files is weaker than requiring stating
that you changed the files and stating which *your name* is.
Requiring that the modifier's name is placed in a comment line fails the
Dissident Test.
People
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:40:23 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
If we are prohibited from removing the name abiword from some
derivative form of the program, then we must be allowed to have
abiword on that derivative form.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 04:04:46PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
That's
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:11:12PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Oops, I have just thought of a case where it isn't so, at least in Spain.
The Spanish trade mark law allows the owner of a trademark to prohibit its
removal from a product.
If we are prohibited from removing the name abiword from
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 11:49:45PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're right that this could be more clearly phrased, and I think
talking to Sun about that can only be helpful. But I don't think
javacc is non-free in the meantime.
I have no problem with this summary, as long as Sun acts
incorporated into functional parts of the work,
*which includes a requirement to change an image, as well as doing a
global s/Mozilla/other/g*, I do not consider it Free to require them to
be changed, and I do not believe it is covered under DFSG4.
Raul Miller wrote:
What does this have to do
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider this hypothetical: I want to use the software in a nuclear power
plant. My lawyers advise me not to make the acknowledgement, because doing
so might make it harder to later take Sun to court if I have to. I refuse
to acknowledge that the
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Your lawyers are insane.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cite?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're considering using unproven, uncertified software running in a
JVM
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're considering using unproven, uncertified software running in a
JVM to operate an unlicensed nuclear power plant, ...
False.
Either [a] the software is first being certified (possibly being modified
in the
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:52:30PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The Department of Energy licenses nuclear power facilities in the
USA, and licenses equipment and software for use there. That license
is what this is talking about.
And it should be explicit that that is what it is talking
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 04:27:48PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What extra freedoms does this buy you? How is the cause of free software
benefited from this distinction? Your entire point here seems to be that
drivers that depend on non-free code that's in ROM are preferable to
non-free code
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:43:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Anyone who distributes the work, modified or unmodified. I don't think
we can't regulate use and be Free; fortunately, most uses of the logo
are distributions, such as putting it on a website, or stamping it on a
CD and
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 05:03:30PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
account; I agree that it should have. I don't have much experience with
designing trademark licenses, as you can tell. Having a trademark license
...
Why don't we simply start with a permissive copyright license,
and a
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
every single occurance of the word Mozilla when making a modified
version? :) I said top-level name, and I meant exactly that. To the
extent names have been
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
can I add functionality by putting it
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
words being called a name.
Why should this be an issue?
It's clear that trademarks serve an identification role. We interpret
the DFSG according to its
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:34:43PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
restrictions on use. I _don't_ think that no restrictions on use
follows directly or indirectly from the DFSG as stated -- at least, I
haven't seen an argument to that effect.
... except where that use falls within some field of
More generally, actions which would make free software not be
treated as free software would seem to be acceptable actions to
discriminate against.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 05:00:05PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That sounds overbroad.
If the license violate other provisions of the
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 07:38:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The form of both is Since person performs action, person shall
be punished by terminating their license. The claim was that this is
somehow acceptable.
There are cases where this is acceptable.
For example, where action involves
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But trademarks are names. That's all they are -- not necessarily in
roman characters or pronounceable, but names nonetheless.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
That's a huge leap, and I seriously doubt it was intended by the
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:37:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Just put a This copyright license does not grant a trademark license
disclaimer after your choice of standard license, and I think we're set,
right?
I don't think that's necessary -- I don't know that it's a problem, but...
A
Raul Miller wrote:
So... what is the DFSG restriction that's violated?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:51:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
DFSG 6.
Suppose I wrote a license that granted all the standard rights to use,
copy, modify, and distribute, but that placed some non-free restriction
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:06:53PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
No, I don't believe it does. The DFSG is not specific to
copyright-based restrictions, and the default restrictions on trademarks
seem to be too strict for Freedom, since they would restrict the use of
the logo.
Anyone can use
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:41:29PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Does it qualify as DFSG-free if you give it a free copyright licence
without granting any kind of trademark licence?
Trademark license is orthogonal to copyright license.
Trademark laws are more like truth in advertising
true.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where, specifically, do you disagree? [Let's take it for granted that
if you disagree with an antecedent that you feel that the consequent
is illogical.]
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 03:58:11PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Something can be non
GPL 7 isn't relevant here. GPL 7 is for cases where someone else holds
the patent. [Note the uses of the phrase imposed on you and the phrase
do not excuse you.]
Try GPL 5 and 6, instead.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:39:38AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Right. So I set up a
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:02:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Word games. If you license something then you lose the ability to sue
people for acting in the manner you licensed them to do. Don't waste
my time; you know full well that's irrelevant.
How is that irrelevant?
If agreement not
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, to infringe your bogus software patent.
I agree here.
If I'm suing someone on the grounds that the software they wrote is
illegal, it's probably a bad idea for me to be distributing their
software.
--
Raul
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:35:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because it's a copyright license. If I give away all these freedoms
with respect to my work, then I should really be giving them away. If
I'm only giving them away contingent on others with rights to the work
giving
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
That's the assertion in question, but it seems almost like we're arguing
about schrodinger's
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 05:13:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Consider bash + script X + glibc -- this is mere aggregation.
This doesn't seem to be an interesting example.
Most scripts are so trivial, that [at least in the u.s.] they fall under
fair use.
I've never seen a bash-specific
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:06:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Which can trivially be twisted to smite any lawsuit you care to bring,
thereby granting them a de facto carte blanche license to do anything
they like. We've been over this already.
I'd agree with you if I could find the clause
theirs, I should negotiate that in an appropriately smoky back
room -- and until all those show up freely, the software isn't free.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to be describing the difference between a public domain work
and a copyleft work, with the claim that copyleft
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:44:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's fine, but if you haven't *really* freely licensed it to me
unless I refrain from suing you, then it's not a free license.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's the assertion in question, but it seems almost
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The claim that copyleft software isn't free is nonsense.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes, but only you've made that claim. I certainly haven't, and I
invite you to quote where you think I've done so.
That isn't
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:06:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
- specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
Impossible for anonymous authors.
I'm not so sure.
Alternatively, there's no the name. I've a first name, middle name
and family name. With initials, and
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:32:17PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, then the question is, is that combined program a derived work of the
GPLed program?
If it consists of two pieces: the GPLed program and the OpenSSL library --
and each exists and is fully functional without the other --
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:59:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
somewhat. In a patent case, the property right to the patent existed
before the original software was ever written. For the person who
wrote the software *after* the invention was patented to try to
blackmail the inventor
the inventor is horrible[1].
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is legal fiction, and sloppy legal fiction at that.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:19:06PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Does this mean you don't have a substantive repsonse?
More like there are so many tangents I could go off
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 01:43:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't see any free way of terminating a license for reasons other than
non-compliance.
That's pretty much a tautology.
If a license requires that you never brush your teeth, and you brush
your teeth, you're not complying
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:42:45PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If a software discriminates against people wanting to sell or even
only those selling free software as binary-only, it is also non-free.
If by discriminates against you mean prevents distribution by,
then you are correct.
If by
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:42:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me.
This sentence disturbs me, for two reasons:
[1] It doesn't appear to be directed at any practical issue.
[2] It does appear to be directed at a person.
I'm not even sure what
* Raul Miller:
I'm not even sure what indirect support of software patents means --
is anything other than outspoken criticism of software patents indirect
support?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:17:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
If you try to convince your fellow Debian developers
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:49:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is choice of venue; it means that, if the licensor wants, he can
force me to trek out to Indiana at whim to defend myself in court,
overriding the normal legal mechanisms for choosing a suitable venue.
I believe most of
This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer
exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the
date You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work
infringes a
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 05:21:36PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
only have the 'binary',
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 03:06:55AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Not really. A having Depends: B doesn't always imply that B is a module
contained in A. Only an examination of the actual relationship between
the GPL-licensed programs in A and the contents of B prove that
relation.
I
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Ok, you're right -- while copyright law makes no specific provisions
about how the copy arrives,...
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:27:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
That's plain wrong. Copyright law restricts actions related to a
copyrighted work
If more than one person is involved in making those copies the individuals
who contributed towards making those copies can still be nailed for
contributory infringement.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:37:11PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
In order to have contributory infringement, there must be
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
So, you don't need an extreme example. It's perfectly valid for one to
take Emacs, link it against OpenSSL, and distribute binaries, as long as
OpenSSL doesn't accompany it.
In the U.S., at least, linking it against OpenSSL
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:46:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why? The plain-English meaning of the phrase accompanies the
executable would imply no such thing, and would in fact appear to be
contrary to the intent of this part of the license.
Under copyright law, the precise details of how
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:40:00PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Huh? Are you claiming that the OS exception doesn't allow linking against
GPL-incompatible system libraries?
It's meaningless to ask that question without specifying who is doing
the linking and who provided those libraries. The
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 03:38:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Huh? There is no copyright infringement here because *the GPL
explicitly allows this form of distribution*.
I was talking about the relationship of copyright law to some distribution
mechanics.
The GPL allows distribution under
I certainly don't see the GPL talking about the issue of shipping some
bits of a program on one day through distributor A and other bits of the
program on another day through distributor B.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 03:58:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
If distributor A is distributing an
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:40:00PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Huh? Are you claiming that the OS exception doesn't allow linking against
GPL-incompatible system libraries?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:16:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
It's meaningless to ask that question without
, 2004 at 05:15:04PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
In the U.S., at least, linking it against OpenSSL probably counts as
accompanying it, even if the binaries for the OpenSSL library do not
appear on the same distribution media as the binaries for Emacs.
Ok, re-reading the GPL, I was wrong about
This case is largely irrelevant unless we'll distribute a version of
emacs with MSVCRT in its depend tree.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:11:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
If you build in Windows, you link against MSVCRT; it's libc. This is
very relevant to what users do with the software.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 07:31:13PM -0400, I wrote:
In the context of that exception, a distinction has already been drawn
to distinguish between stuff that comes with the system and the rest of
the program.
It's a mistake to claim that the exception applies to the rest of the
license just
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:36:23PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Please read the start of this subthread; the point was about
distributing as _source_ and compiling on the user's machine. The
program in source form does not include OpenSSL.
In which case there would be no mention of
On Sep 10, 2004, at 18:13, Raul Miller wrote:
Under copyright law, the precise details of how the copy arrives
doesn't matter.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:48:54PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Yes it does. Consider the difference between a copy of Windows arriving
by being downloaded
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
They did. Solaris 9 reportedly comes with GNU tools (I can't check it
myself because I don't have a machine running Solaris).
You can get gnu tools for solaris from http://www.sunfreeware.com
To my knowledge, gnu tools are not
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
This is all irrelevant. The issue is that you can't distribute GPL
binaries *linked against* GPL-incompatible libraries.
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:16:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
It's more complicated than that when dynamic linking is
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:16:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Because fee is an English word meaning a payment for a good or
service. It really doesn't mean money only, in any context where
precise language is used. If I have to perform in some way to obtain
a license, then that's a
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
While legally you're right, I think from a point of view of politeness
you're wrong. Maybe somebody who isn't Debian will fork cdrtools, but
in the meantime it should just be moved to non-free.
Distributing a forked copy is
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/19/111
Is there any chance that someone has hacked his account?
Alternatively, is there any chance that he's writing in german and
relying on a program to translate what he says?
Or, maybe, that
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 01:11:42PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Taken altogether, it looks like this package is not distributable by
anybody with parts under the JS-GPL.
I've taken a look at a copy from January, and it has the same problem.
I don't know how far back we'd have to go to
Section 9 simply does not give the right to choose any version of the
GPL other than what is specified by the copyright holder.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Which means what, in the context of gcc?]
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:00:00AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote
How are you releasing gcc with those statements intact and yet invalid?
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:46:20AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You always have the legal obligation to maintain accurate copyright
notices. For example, if I made changes to gcc, I might distribute
the results as
However, this doesn't mean that a copyright holder who distributes the GPL
(version 2) with a prohibition on people distributing any other version
has granted other people the right to distribute at all.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:16:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Whoah. So you
What happens to the notices which claim:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
any later version.
Email me to find out copyright terms is not an appropriate copyright
notice. What happens in copyright terms if the email bounces, for
example?
Read the change log to figure out what terms apply where is not an
appropriate copyright notice, either. Changelogs are inadequate for
that
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
to it and any later version, you have the option of following the
terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
published by the Free Software Foundation.
Raul Miller [EMAIL
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:37:47PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I omit your expansions of this because I think they are somewhere
between exercises in silliness and exercises in perversity.
Raul Miller writes:
In other words: you disagree, but don't want to express any specific
401 - 500 of 1213 matches
Mail list logo
