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.
That's true in the US, too; http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew112.php
says:
In order to
people are eager to use a proprietary language where you have to
submit all your code to the company?
If the website invokes a bash script that invokes sed, recode, GCC,
gas and ld, which if any of those seven programs did the user directly
interact with?
David Starner -- [EMAIL PROTECTED
The international copyright treaties, if I am not mistaken, only
grant copyrights to works which are capable of being subject to
copyright in their 'home countries'.
It's not that simple. The US, for one, recognizes copyrights on
works under copyright under US law that aren't in copyright
and
ask you if you were watching. Are you really advocating that someone
commit perjury in that case?
David Starner -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
; furthermore what is now not legally binding may be so in
the future. As copyrights last life+70, this might be tried by Emperor
Louis XXXI, Duke of Mississippi, King of France, Emperor of Greater
Eurasia. Or by a strictly literal computer judge.
David Starner -- [EMAIL PROTECTED
not wanting to give the modification back to upstream and thus
to the community at large.
I'm happy giving back to the community at large. I'm not happy
giving back to anyone who demands the capability to take my
modifications proprietary, especially not if they won't give
me the same options.
after you (plural and impersonal you) all dragged me into this
mud pit
I've have watched many extended arguments, and participated in
many myself. When I get involved in an argument like you have,
it's a clear sign I have too much time on my hands or I'm
avoiding work. If you are concerned
Now, the whole idea of applying the same freeness criteria to what I
call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me,
Can we give it up? We've had at least a year of discussion on this
subject, then a vote, then long flame-wars all over the place, then
another vote, since people
gcc is LGPL.
Diego
I don't know where you got that idea, but it's wrong. Some of the
libraries may be LGPL, but the compiler itself is very much GPL,
to the point that RMS doesn't want people adding interfaces that
might make it easier to use a GCC frontend by itself without
linking to GCC.
Stephen Frost writes:
Of course it could. Writing an assembler would probably take some
serious effort too without knowing that information. To some extent
that's my point- are we going to require hardware specifications for
anything that uses firmware? Personally I don't think we need to,
People have argued that since there exists open source tools for
editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even
if Font Foundries have their own preferred source formats and use
propietary tools to create font files via a compilation process.
But the TrueType files
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and
the binary in this case. Write a QD disassembler and extract the
assembly if you want.
Even if we were talking about x86 assembly, there would still be a lot
of difference
On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
Not true. Governments can (and have) passed legislation to yank a work
out of the public domain and put it back under copyright.
Anthony DeRobertis wrote in response:
cough Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act cough
No; the MMCEA (or
How then, can someone who tacks on the GPL, because he's seen it
before, and it's supposed to be a good choice, know exactly what he
really wants? I'm not talking about GNU Readline here, I'm talking
about numerous small projects having nothing to do with the FSF and
their grand scheme.
Initially, back in 50s-60s-70s all software was free software
I've read that while programs may not have been covered by
copyright, they were frequently covered by contracts promising
the wrath of the selling company if there were copies made.
This lead us to the important point. Free
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Initially, back in 50s-60s-70s all software
was free software. Proprietary software come into being only after
computer programs was copyrighted. Computer programs was copyrighted
relatively late, in 1976 year in USA, in 1991 year in Russia and
maybe even
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know many modern (not public domain) political texts
of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?
When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
that I printed it out and showed it to a friend (who was less
impressed.)
it's extremely questionable to try to interpret
preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification,
or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred
form for modification has been lost.
The preferred form for modification is not the form we'd like to
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,:
In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated
that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from
Debian packages:
If Debian does not,
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all
the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in
the past).
So it's okay to ignore
RMS writes:
However, I don't follow the DFSG, nor an interpretation of the DFSG
that labels documentation as software; so I don't have an artificial
reason to insist on identical criteria for freedom for manuals and for
programs.
This is not merely an artifical reason. If someone added a
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:44:41PM -0500, D. Starner wrote:
I also have no idea what direction to render the text (left-to-right or
right-to-left). The standard tells me.
There are DFSG-free data files that include all the normative information
like this. Run locate UnicodeData -- I
The arguments appear to be:
1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
crucial.
But they are an irrelevant two parts. If Joe Blow writes a license
for his program or
I also have no idea what direction to render the text (left-to-right or
right-to-left). The standard tells me.
There are DFSG-free data files that include all the normative information
like this. Run locate UnicodeData -- I have 5 copies from Debian packages.
It's not terribly human-readable,
If the license for the code did not allow modification, you could not
make it implement different behavior. You would substantively lack
the ability to change the functionality. That is a lack of real
freedom.
I fail to see how this differs from an invariant section. (We can't
add a change
The fact that you're talking about a hypothetical example decades away
suggests that this is not a major issue. But we can consider the
issue anyway.
In this case, part of the reason for using a hypothetical is the fact
the only people using extended Invariant Sections is the FSF, and it's
It adds some practical inconvenience, but practically speaking the
magnitude is not great, so there's no reason not to do it.
Let's say I write a (GPL) compiler for Perl 2045, and someone writing a
(GPL) sample implemenation of Fortran 2045 wants to borrow my regex code.
They can do so; the
* That which is in main must be buildable and usable solely with
packages also in main (IOW, main is a closure);
Really? Does that mean that the Windows specific parts of GCC must
be removed from the tarball? Or does it only apply to programs, so
if coreutils provides a 1k helper program that
There are just two points in this flow, where
intentional (not as side effect of other considerations) efforts
(not including no-doing) to remove inapropriate texts can be
qualified otherwise: begin (author), and end (reader, user). All
other should be considered censorship.
So if you get a
But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of
existed copyright laws) makes this difference.
What differences the law, made by people who never heard of
free software and probably had their pen guided by people
from large proprietary software companies, is of little
Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally,
affects only professional distributors, there was little or no
problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so
large, that it affect the rights and interests of users and authors.
I don't understand how copyright has
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we would have the old, 1904-1912-style copyright laws,
there would be much less problems with copyright.
For example, the computer software become copyrightable only
in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense.
And if that
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Documentation in not a software.
This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which turns software
into documentation? What about the numerous other times documentation is
embedded into source code or source code is embedded into documentation?
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
similar. Because you conceal from users the information from
creator, that they reasonable expect to receive from you. Against
the will
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman'
game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in
source code of all derived versions, and must be invoked (perhaps
through a command-line option) by every derived program?
Brian T. Sniffen, on 2003-08-22, 13:54, you wrote:
[...]
Whew, I though this was a list for serious discussion, but some participants
obviously have to reach a certain age first... *plonk*
Joerg
I, for one, didn't find his argument juvenile at all. I agree with him;
you answered the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
For example, the one who ports the program to the
proprietary language may do it out of honest desire to make some good
free software available in what he sees as an exciting new
environment.
How does this differ from, say, Emacs on Windows? I'm sure that Emacs
has been extended to do some
- the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
domain. Er, modulo the small percentage of life+50 texts. And modulo
Australia, which seems to have rejected Feist, although the case is on
appeal to
Does this mean every unicode text editor belongs in contrib (depends on
something non-free)?
Many (perhaps all) RFCs are non-free as well; does that mean that
compliant implementations must go into contrib or non-free?
The problem is, every character in Unicode, all 70,000 of them, has a
then it would be correct, but would be wrong if considered
in British English. ]
‘affect’ and ‘effect’ is a distinction made by American English — as is
‘insure’ and ‘ensure’, for that matter. I see ‘ensure’ much more often
then ‘insure’ in American English.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Great
Most of people who actually hold the copyrights (if they even claimed
any copyright at all, which is doubtful), are unknown and cannot be
contacted.
Legally, the fact that they are unknown and cannot be contacted is no
help; everything I've ever worked with in copyrights indicates that
that's a
.
[...]
That is bullshit. Quit fighting strawmen, or shut up.
[...]
More BS.
Until you can settle down I'm not going to discuss this with you.
I notice how you cut your writing which he was replying to. It certainly
helped making your response seem justified.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:24:31PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I notice how you cut your writing which he was replying to. It certainly
helped making your response seem justified.
Sorry, justified?
What I meant, was that Branden cut all his
wordlists are probably going
to have significant differences in the set of words included.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
A field where a thousand corpses lie.
-- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
‐defined meaning, it has a
well‐defined spelling and currently common usage among a reasonably large
group of people. That’s a creative decision there. Is ‘virii’
an acceptable spelling? Is ‘bakress’?
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
A field where
Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
A field where a thousand corpses lie.
-- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:41:29AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:30:37PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
Iff the author authorised a
translation, the translation *can
If the original GULP is not DSFG-free, I cannot see any way that the
document or any translation of it could possibly be allowed in main.
The non-freeness of the original document would prevent any translation
from being DFSG-free, as I understand U.S. copyright law.
I see no reason why you could
So the two copyrights exist together on the translated work.
NO!
I'm starting to think I do have a communication problem here.
Yes, the problem is the law is ambiguious, and we believe we know how it's
interpreted. You never did respond to the It's a Wonderful Life case . .
with that copyright.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
A field where a thousand corpses lie.
-- Stephen Crane, War is Kind
-format files,
which can be manipulated by other programs (say, an ad-hoc Perl script,
or a program from Evil-Evil Soft), they want to link in VCG.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. /
A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
,
might actually use that data in a non-approved way. They might forget to
put a license on their perl script, say.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. /
A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
we'll be doing any real changes to it.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. /
A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
+ 80 years (e.g. Columbia).
See http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. /
A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. /
A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb
quote from them...
Our data are public domain.
Use of ADC data in writing software should be acknowledged by reference
to the original authors and publication and to the ADC. The acknowledgment
might read:
This software uses data provided by Mark/Mary Astronomer in AJ, 115,
1998 as
http://bibliofile.mc.duke.edu/gww/fonts/Unicode.html
This set of fonts is distributed under a license which contains the
following clause:
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
I think you're a little over-zealous in your interpretation. The original
distributor is clearly the only entity not distributing what for them is
the preferred form for modification, and that's their prerogative. Whilst
we may not like it, I don't think it in any way makes it undistributable;
as
The Readme for VCG says:
LICENSE CONDITIONS
Copyright (C) 1993--1995 by Iris Lemke, Georg Sander, and
the Compare Consortium
This work is supported by the ESPRIT project 5399 Compare.
We thank the Compare Consortium for the permission to
At 04:56 PM 8/8/02 -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Thomas, the wishes of Knuth need not to be divined. He expressed them
quite clearly. Why do not you read some FAQ, say,
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=TeXfuture
You think that's clear? The only thing pertinent to the argument, and
At 08:49 PM 8/5/02 -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 14:49, Joe Drew wrote:
Has there been any resolution of this issue? Is it safe to close these
bugs?
It seems there has been no resolution, but this is an issue we cannot
afford to ignore.
Why? Honestly, we won't be the first to
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-04
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: iso-codes
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Alastair McKinstry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL :
http://www.saorleir.com/iso-codeshttp://www.saorleir.com/iso-codes
* License :
I took over the upstream of xsoldier (I am not the original author,
so I don't have the copyright). It was under GPL version 2
or later. Can I put it under GPL exactly version 2, that is,
forbid any later version? GPL says:
[...]
Is forbidding later versions of GPL further restrictions?
I
problem is
that OpenSSL is the bad guy,
This is debatable (and note that you don't have to be infatuated with
the GPL to become involved with Debian), and off topic.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing
with the youth
it would be better to drop the last six lines; legally, all it
can do is complicate any dispute. However, in any situation not
involving lawyers filing brief and counter brief with a judge, it's the
same thing. I don't see any problem with it.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit
. Assuming that the copyright violator was
stupid enough to go that far; all GPL license questions have been
settled out of court, because getting hauled into court is an expensive
risky proposition.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you don't have
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases.
Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it;
lacking direct permission (rather painful
it out.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you don't have it you're on the other side.
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases.
Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it;
lacking direct permission (rather painful for the kernel), you have to
distribute it under the GPL if you distribute it.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit
, and the GPL is
a decent lazy-man's way of applying them.
What exactly was the question here?
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you don't have it you're on the other side.
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
.)
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you don't have it you're on the other side.
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] accompanies the executable.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you don't have it you're on the other side.
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
code without
a copyright statement and objecting when people use it.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you don't have it you're on the other side.
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you don't have it you're on the other side.
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
swirl. We don't care about
modifying GLUT source code on the hard drive; we need to know we can
modify it and distribute it.
--
David Starner / Давид Старнэр - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing
not. Was there anything you were worried about?
--
David Starner / Давид Старнэр - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing
with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc.
to be included in the
package.
--
David Starner / Давид Старнзр - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing
with the youth. -- Information Society, Peace and Love, Inc.
Apparently, the maintainer of Glut hasn't been changed yet.
So I'll cc you directly. (Sorry for the extra copies, James.)
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:41:21PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
reopen 131997
thanks
* GLUT headers and examples are actually DFSG free,
see debian/copyright
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 10:51:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This would mean that we would have to stop distributing the Emacs
manual, which has always contained such invariant sections.
As has the GCC manual, at least since 1994. (Funding Free Software)
--
David Starner - [EMAIL
than him possibly not being the person who
posted it.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less.
- Disciple, Stuart Davis
, right?
Debian has so far ignored that clause, since many of us feel that it
leads to too many questions to be worth it, and that it's fundamentatly
a copout for a Free OS to use it.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face
heard, it only covers
encoding, and Fraunhofer is making idle threats about decoding.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:10:10PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Oct 21, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:58:22PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
With current jdk license it cannot be put in non-free, right? In this
case, openoffice cannot be put in main nor in contrib
are not in our archive at all for compilation or execution
(interesting that it can't require a package in non-us, but it can
require one not in the archive.)
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
significant creative work to make.
Why wouldn't it be copyrightable? I don't see why it's any different
from any other textual work of the same size and creative effort.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my
Raadt
having to follow the GPL, and that was Bruce Peren's opinion at the
time.)
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less.
- Disciple
suggest starting with the
documentation for gcc, just to get to the heart of the matter.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less
tidbits in Debian main
already. Like licenses.
Licenses have always been declared out of territory, since there's no
need to modify them, and we don't want to argue with various authors
over the license of the license.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http
that in countries other than the US, you can assert copyright
on bitmap fonts.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less.
- Disciple, Stuart Davis
/Windows programming communities (especially
pre-97 or so.) Note the large number of free MetaFont fonts. We just
need to convince font people that they should release under free
licneses.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my
as is.
There's also a clause about not changing the name. Since we have a
clause specifically permitting forcing a name change, I'd say that not
permitting a name change would be disallowed restricting modification.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw
Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less.
- Disciple, Stuart Davis
.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less.
- Disciple, Stuart Davis
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly
is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG.
Icons are not metadata. The author
sections of text in some GNU Free Documentation License'd texts
that can not be modified - for example, Funding Free Software in the
gcc manual. Is that DFSG-free or otherwise permissable in main? If it
is, then what about other unmodifiable texts? Where's the line, and why?
--
David Starner - [EMAIL
licenses. But I don't see how that
matters.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
of reasoning. Whether or not HP does it makes no difference
to us. Even it currently being in Debian is no proof of it being
acceptable; every so often we come across a license that has been in
Debian for years, but that isn't DFSG.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http
, if it is to apply to documentation
and RFC's, modificiation must be allowed.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
).
The univ. considers itself to be a copyright holder, and this
was the only way to get any distribution rights.
He didn't answer the non-free question yet, though.
Huh? That's an answer to the non-free question, right there.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
