On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:44:56 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 26/09/2005 17:31 : wrote Francesco Poli :
[...]
> > The best definition of source
> > that I know of is the one found in the GPL.
> >
>
> We will have to agree on disagreeing, then. :-)
>
> The definition on the GPL (section 3, para
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:35:57 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >As I already said, I'm not so convinced that a pseudonym "identifies"
> >a person. In fact, it does (almost) the opposite, I would say.
> >It builds a 'fak
> > 2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
>
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Fails the dissident test, but there's some level of disagreement over
> whether that matters.
Doesn't it depend on the meaning of "identified"? We accept such licenses if
arbitrary pseudonyms are
@ 26/09/2005 17:31 : wrote Francesco Poli :
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:33:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit
>> :
>>> > 2. The person making the modifications must be
>>> > identified.
>>>
>>> Yellow alert -- dis
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As I already said, I'm not so convinced that a pseudonym "identifies" a
person. In fact, it does (almost) the opposite, I would say.
It builds a 'fake' identity, but hides the real identity of its owner.
IMHO, it's
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:33:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
> > > 2. The person making the modifications must be
> > > identified.
> >
> > Yellow alert -- dissident test. Marco d'Itri is extremely vocal
> > ag
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:09:08 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 24/09/2005 14:22 : wrote Francesco Poli :
[...]
Thanks for your analysis.
P.S.: please do not reply to me, as I didn't asked that: rather, reply
to the list only! thanks
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?
Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
> > 2. The person making the modifications must be
> > identified.
>
> Yellow alert -- dissident test. Marco d'Itri is extremely vocal
> against the Dissident Test, but I think anonymity is necessary for
> Free
ike to discuss the DFSG-compliance of a work released solely
> under this license (excluding other legal issues, such as
> trademarks, patents, and so forth).
>
>
> =-=-=-=-= License text follows: =-=-=-=-=
>
>
> LINUX DOCUMENTATION PROJECT LICENSE (LDPL) v2.0, 12 January
>
Scripsit "Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Henning Makholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>It's a reasonable interpretation. The problem is that there are
>>_other_ reasonable interpretations as well; in particular one easily
>>imagines a court that would find that the "limited-scope iden
El domingo, 25 de septiembre de 2005 a las 10:58:49 -0400, Joe Smith escribía:
> Is it just me or is it hard to sue a pseudonymous modifier, becaue their
> real identiy is not known?
Yes, but the pseudonymous modifier would have lost the license to
distribute the work, and anyone distributing t
"Henning Makholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All identifiers have scope; if the license doesn't specify, there's no
reason to think you can't use an identifier whose scope is limited to
your
involvement in the pro
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> All identifiers have scope; if the license doesn't specify, there's no
> reason to think you can't use an identifier whose scope is limited to your
> involvement in the project. :)
It's a reasonable interpretation. The problem is that there are
_other
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 12:43:20AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > | 2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
> > > This fails to allow anonymous modifications
> [...]
> > I think the license clause permits pseudonymity,
> I don't think so.
> A pseudonym does not "identify"
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:40:32 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>
> > The main clauses I'm concerned about are:
> >
> > Clause A.2:
> >
> > | 2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
> >
> > This fails to allow anonymous modifications
[...]
> I think the licens
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:34:47 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The others are requests rather than requirements, so there's no
> problem there.
Ooh! :p
I apologize for this: I was sure I had read "required", rather than
"requested"! :-(
Thanks for pointing out.
OK, my fault, please ignore everyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Clause A.2:
>
>| 2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
>
>This fails to allow anonymous modifications and thus fails the
>Dissident test, it's a restriction on modifications (I have to
>give up something, namely my anonymity, in order to get permissi
Francesco Poli writes:
> The main clauses I'm concerned about are:
>
> Clause A.2:
>
> | 2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
>
> This fails to allow anonymous modifications and thus fails the
> Dissident test, it's a restriction on modifications (I have to
> give up somethi
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. The modified version must be labeled as such.
Seems ok.
> 2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
Fails the dissident test, but there's some level of disagreement over
whether that matters.
> 3. Acknow
uding other legal issues, such as trademarks,
patents, and so forth).
=-=-=-=-= License text follows: =-=-=-=-=
LINUX DOCUMENTATION PROJECT LICENSE (LDPL) v2.0, 12 January 1998
I. COPYRIGHT
The copyright to each Linux Documentation Project (LDP) document is owned
by its auth
20 matches
Mail list logo
