On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:54:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
The legal documents, *as applied to a particular package*, must be
retained verbatim. But the law itself doesn't prevent me from taking
the GPL, modifying it, and using the modified version as a license for
my own package.
The
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:52:36PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Stephen Ryan wrote:
The legal terms are not copyrightable;
In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all. Moreover, in Veeck v
SBCCI we see that only federal, state and local laws are denied the
protection of
Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to documentation
(in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to mention to someone (but
promptly forgot) that the license under which the text of the FSF's licenses
(GPL, LGPL, FDL) are licensed is much stricter than even the
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley wrote:
The GPL c are allowed to be copied only in full without any
modifications.
Yes, we should put the GPL itself in non-free, and all the rest of
Debian in contrib :-)
--
.''`. Y al final, números rojos, en la cuenta del olvido
: :' :
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 09:58, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley wrote:
Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to
documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to mention to
someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under which the text of the
FSF's
* Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040228 16:10]:
The GPL c are allowed to be copied only in full without any modifications.
Legally spoken, if some code is under whatever license, then nothing
of the license is removable by anyone except the copyright holder. In
the special
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to
documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to
mention to someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under
which the text of the FSF's licenses
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:40:01AM -0500, Stephen Ryan wrote:
It is clear to me that Debian has been proceeding with something roughly
like the following:
The legal documents (copyright notice, license) must be retained
verbatim in order for all of us to avoid being sued into oblivion.
Le sam 28/02/2004 à 15:58, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley a écrit :
Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to
documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to
mention to someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under which
the text of the FSF's
On 2004-02-28 14:58:48 + Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the DFSG do apply to non-software -- has a descision been made on
this? --
this would I think effectively stop Debian from distributing any
GPLed work
on a CD which conforms to the DFSG.
The GPL on
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Walter Landry wrote:
Actually, you are allowed to modify the license terms. You are just
not allowed to modify the preamble.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
Not quite. There are two answers to this FAQ question on gnu.org, both
in opposition to
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 16:35, Don Armstrong wrote (quoting the GPL FAQ):
I think the key line is this:
(You can use the legal terms to make another license but it won't be
the GNU GPL.)
The legal terms are not copyrightable; this is the FSF admitting that,
in a very oblique way. I believe the
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Stephen Ryan wrote:
The legal terms are not copyrightable;
In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all. Moreover, in Veeck v
SBCCI we see that only federal, state and local laws are denied the
protection of copyrights (in addition to the classes of works
specificaly denied
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 08:04, MJ Ray wrote:
The GPL on the CD is software.
Absolutely, unequivocally, no debate on this one, right?
Intention of Bruce Perens perhaps, intention of many others perhaps.
I guess that gives anyone the right to claim this as uncontested fact.
I think it's useful to
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The legal terms are not copyrightable;
In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all.
Indeed. I might be wrong here, but I think that one of the ways the
Law Society in England prevents non-solicitors from taking work away
from qualified lawyers is by
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 09:07:15AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I think it's useful to distinguish between software and documentation
and probably licenses (as legal instruments) too. Licenses are also
documentation (of themselves).
House rule: anybody who wishes to distinguish between
16 matches
Mail list logo
