unsubscribe
unsubscribe
definition of "use"
Greetings(Please be sure to CC me!),
First, my apologies for not joining the conversation around the time
that it transpired, but it was not until recently that I had noticed it.
Second, my apologies to Mr. Welch for suffering from the controversy
created by the license that I wrote.
That's right, it's me, "random Joe off the street" as Mr. Palmer put it.
And, yes, IANAL(Of course IANAL. Lawyers would not consider brevity to
be a value in an instrument, and for good reason, I know(Despite the
lack of any indication of such knowledge). ;).
Before I get into any details, this discussion is about the definition
of the word 'use' in the context of copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17[1]),
and perhaps whatever extra insights the connotations of the fair license
might provide within its single, compound sentence.
This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
the context of copyright law is as follows:
6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
of owning property; "we were given the use of his boat"
[syn: {enjoyment}]
(From WordNet 2.0)
(dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
net)
There are, obviously, many other definitions for the word 'use', and I
am not sure if this is the accepted definition within copyright law. I
admit that that is an assumption that I made. Although, throughout
debian-devel and debian-legal's criticisms of this license, I have seen
nothing but statements that do not even consider that as a possibility,
and all without giving references to resources that would further
substantiate their position by showing 'use' not does mean the above.
Mostly, "It doesn't specifically specify, therefore it doesn't include."
*If* this is the accepted definition of the word 'use' within the
context copyright law, then there is should be no shadows of doubt that
this is not a free license, as the enjoyment of the benefits of owning
copyrighted works should include the exclusive rights granted by Title
17 Chapter 1[2], as those are the benefits of ownership.
(I know, pretty big if.)
So, if one is to continue entertaining the idea that the fair license is
not a free license, then they must hold true that the above is *not* the
definition of 'use' in the context of copyright law. If that is the
case, what is the definition of the word 'use' in the context of
copyright law? If you feel compelled to provide an answer, please
provide the source of the definition as well.
I am very interested in knowing the truth here.
(Conclusion after responses)
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 07:59:11AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > > That licence does not grant any permission to modify,
> > > redistribute, or otherwise deal in the work in a Free manner. For
> it to be
> > > judged as satisfying the Open Source Definition is ludicrous.
The ludicrousness of the idea depends entirely on one's definition of
the word 'use'.
> > Are you an Laywer, is that based on research?
>
> No, and yes.
What research did you do? Can you provide specific references to the
resources that favor your position?
> > I mean, for me "Use" of source code does include all those freedoms.
>
> That's nice. But irrelevant. The fair licence doesn't even require
> source
> code, so it can quite easily apply to a work for which there is no
> source.
And the problem is?
> In the past, some copyright holders have decided to interpret even
> widely-known and free licences like the MIT licence in non-free ways
> (cite:
> pine), so having the wording of a licence be explicit and clear is a
> definite advantage. This licence is neither.
This only reaffirms my resolve to test this license. Anything can be
misinterpreted. Even books with thousands of pages. Don't make me give
the obvious examples.
The fair license simply provides less to be misinterpreted; thus the
beauty of it.
> > Therfore I feel like accepting OSI's decision and accepting the fact
> that it
> > is free.
>
> I feel like an icecream sundae.
Perhaps you should join the license-discuss list and participate.
In conclusion,
While the length of my response might not indicate it, I am not married
to this license. I wrote it in an attempt to create a *very* concise
authorization of I.P. use. BSD and MIT licenses satisfy my needs, save
brevity and generality. For instance, BSD and MIT refer to 'source
code', 'software', and 'documentation', which I would gather refer to
"computer programs", but how do images and other kinds of works fall
into those terms(I guess SVG might fall into source code ;)? What if I
wanted to "open source" other kinds of works? I thought it would be more
fitting to have a license that actually uses the terminology of the laws
that specify the restrictions of the granted exclusive rights. It really
is a shame that 'use' is not defined in Title 17.
The only useful conclusion that I have been able to dire
Traps for rc bug fixing
ma, 2005-04-25 kello 23:40 +0200, Joerg Jaspert kirjoitti: > Its a tool where everything is written in one file, and then something > generates the debian/ out of it. Argh. Speaking as someone who looks at lots of different packages while fixing RC bugs, anything that is out of the ordinary is a snare, and will trip people up, or cause extra work. Having taken a very brief look at yada, I can already see that it is going to be unpleasant to work on packages using yada. Not that it is the only such innovation: lots of packages have traps for the unwary. For example, if the source code isn't unpacked after "dpkg-source -x", then there is an extra step before I can start working. Since there is no standard for what the step should be, I have to first figure it out. (We *really* need a new source file format that allows multiple patches to upstream source neatly.) If "debian/rules build" does the actual unpacking of upstream source every time, unconditionally, and overwrites any edits I may have done, I'm going to lose some work before I figure that out. If I have to edit debian/packages rather than debian/control, then it's yet another complication for me, even if it makes things simpler for the package maintainer. RC bug fixing becomes less efficient, and less fun, when instead of working on the bug, I must first map a mine field. Whenever I say "I", it also applies to the security team, of course, who are going to have to potentially fix any package in a stable release. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternative: Source-Centric Approach [w/code]
"Freddie Unpenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I'm wondering, what happens if you want to install MOST of the deps >> > from source? Wouldn't it be better to have apt-build (using the >> > "official apt algorithms") ask on a dep-by-dep basis whether you >> > want it compiled from source or installed from a binary? >> Which is basically what sourcerer acomplishes in a nice, transparent, >> round up fashion (upload pending some spare time). > > What if I use dselect, aptitude, or any number of other similar packages as > my package manager? Can I select packages to be installed or upgraded? Aptitude uses apt (through libapt) and dselect can (and should be) configured to use apt. I think all frontends (can) use apt with the exception of using dpkg directly. But the use of apt is only important to automatically track what is installed and what not. If you don't want that you can manualy tweak the lists for sourcerer-archive or sourcerer-buildd. Sourcerer-archive itself build a debian archive and you just point apt (or other frontend) to use it as additional (or only) source for packages. > I recognise that I may need to use your package to select packages that > should be built from source as opposed to installed from binary packages, but > can they be still be upgraded (via source) though my regular package manager? In my current setup I have sourcerer-watcher follow my apt usage completly so everything goes automatic. Here is what happens: 1) I : apt-get install foobar <- download foobar from debian and install 2) watcher: add foobar to list of sources to carry and build 3) archive: mirror foobar sources 4) buildd : build local foobar 5) I : apt-get update; apt-get upgrade <- install local build foobar 6) time : when a new source comes out go back to 3 > My usual pattern is to update and select using dselect, download using a cron > job with "apt-get -d dselect-upgrade", followed by installing the following > day with "apt-get dselect-upgrade"... What part of that process would need > to change to support your package? Nothing. In fact to get your current behaviour you would tell the watcher to add/remove packages from the sourcerer-archive list and leave sourcerer-buildd alone. And you tell sourcerer-archive to mirror only debs. Every night the archive then downloads any new version of installed debs and the next day you can upgrade them directly. You don't need to run a buildd for this. That is just one of the sources for debs. > > Fredderic MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Status of PHP5?
Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Debian has more than 900 developers, a minimum amount of cooperation > is necessary... May I then ask why the maintainers of PHP4 hasn't joined the discussion? I think it would be important that they explain their reasons for not having packaged PHP5 yet. Adam Conrad wrote[1] in August 2004 that the PHP5 packages would be uploaded soon, but that they had taken a backseat to PHP4 packages and the Sarge release. These are honest questions: * Do the PHP4 maintainers find PHP5 too buggy for inclusion in Debian? * Do they lack the time to maintain PHP5? I can understand that they want things "done right", but please, six months is a long time. An update on the situation would be very much appreciated. [1]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=262977#msg6 -- Martin Geisler My GnuPG Key: 0x7E45DD38 PHP EXIF Library | PHP Weather | PhpShell http://pel.sf.net/| http://phpweather.net/ | http://gimpster.com/ Read/write EXIF data | Show current weather| A shell in a browser pgpwRNEBmOr2B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#305753: general: 38 packages still use 'Origin: debian'
On Sun, April 24, 2005 01:22, Dan Jacobson wrote: > Thijs> Perhaps you can state in your bugreport why it is needed to fix > Thijs> this. What problems does that field cause? > > I think they just need to delete a line somewhere. > I assume Origin isn't necessary for these packages to say anymore. > Anyway, "just sticks out, looks funny, feels bad"... So to conclude, there's no reason for that mass bug filing apart from your "feeling" that it "looks funny". Since it poses no real problem at all, I don't even see a lintian-test being warranted for this. This should indeed be closed unless you can come up with some real reason why this should be changed. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#305753: general: 38 packages still use 'Origin: debian'
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > So to conclude, there's no reason for that mass bug filing apart from your > "feeling" that it "looks funny". Since it poses no real problem at all, I > don't even see a lintian-test being warranted for this. This should indeed > be closed unless you can come up with some real reason why this should be > changed. of course this should not be rushed, and isn't really critical at all. but cruft *is* a bug, and things should be cleaned up. cu robert -- Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of PHP5?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:15:38AM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote: > I'd like to ask one more time: where is mailing list, the repository, > project page? It doesn't seem like open project. > Cooperation? A little less conversations, more action, please. Do you know > "The cathedral and the bazaar"? > Hijacking? For 10 months there are no packages. I should start MIA > procedure. The ITP seems like to be orphaned. This goes both ways, though: the packages you've produced are very different to the existing PHP packages and fairly unusual in terms of just being plain Debian packages (I'm thinking mostly of yada here). Doing more incremental changes would make it much easier for people to pick up and work with what you've done. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: definition of "use"
James William Pye wrote:
Greetings(Please be sure to CC me!),
First, my apologies for not joining the conversation around the time
that it transpired, but it was not until recently that I had noticed it.
Second, my apologies to Mr. Welch for suffering from the controversy
created by the license that I wrote.
That's right, it's me, "random Joe off the street" as Mr. Palmer put it.
And, yes, IANAL(Of course IANAL. Lawyers would not consider brevity to
be a value in an instrument, and for good reason, I know(Despite the
lack of any indication of such knowledge). ;).
Before I get into any details, this discussion is about the definition
of the word 'use' in the context of copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17[1]),
and perhaps whatever extra insights the connotations of the fair license
might provide within its single, compound sentence.
This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
the context of copyright law is as follows:
6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
of owning property; "we were given the use of his boat"
[syn: {enjoyment}]
(From WordNet 2.0)
(dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
net)
This definition does not match the definition of "usar" (=to use) in
Brazilian Law, which is based on possession, not ownership.
While the length of my response might not indicate it, I am not married
to this license. I wrote it in an attempt to create a *very* concise
authorization of I.P. use. BSD and MIT licenses satisfy my needs, save
brevity and generality. For instance, BSD and MIT refer to 'source
code', 'software', and 'documentation', which I would gather refer to
"computer programs", but how do images and other kinds of works fall
into those terms(I guess SVG might fall into source code ;)? What if I
wanted to "open source" other kinds of works? I thought it would be more
fitting to have a license that actually uses the terminology of the laws
that specify the restrictions of the granted exclusive rights. It really
is a shame that 'use' is not defined in Title 17.
The only useful conclusion that I have been able to directly draw from
these discussions is that it is not *self evident* that 'use'
constitutes the exercising/enjoyment of the bundle of rights given to
the owner of copyrighted works by U.S.C. Title 17 Chapter 1[2].
So, what is the definition of the word 'use'? Does it *only* mean to
execute a program? Or to *only* read a book? Or to *only* listen to that
music?
In Brazilian "computer programs" law, what we *do* have is that using a
program is defined by its "use license contract" terms, meaning the
execution of the program under those terms -- limited by our "fair use
clauses" (art. 6º Computer Programs Law [L.9609/98]: one backup copy;
citation with source in context of education; similarity by
functionality; integration on/to other systems) and by our (very heavy)
consumer-protection law.
In the case of non-computer-programs-stuff, what we do have is a statute
limitation clause (art. 46 Author's Rights Act [L.9610/98]: lots of
stuff, among them musical execution in your home or in schools).
So, yes, one can suppose safely that the word "use" in the case of a
computer program license means executing such program; in the case of a
music, means listening to it in a private/familiar environment or in a
school; and in the case of a computer library, the execution of its API
by other programs.
Anyways, I'm getting too tired to think; perhaps when I hear back, I
will have more positions and points. That is, if you or someone else
doesn't provide something fatal.
[1]http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_17.php
[2]http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt
IANAL, TINLA, this is just MHO.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
I had forgotten mplayer_1.0pre7.orig.tar.gz now it is there A Mennucc wrote: hi mplayer 1.0pre7 is ready and packaged at http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge a. ps: still no news from ftpmasters... hope they at least will try to read http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Status of PHP5?
On Tuesday 26 of April 2005 14:09, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:15:38AM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote: > > Hijacking? For 10 months there are no packages. I should start MIA > > procedure. The ITP seems like to be orphaned. > > This goes both ways, though: the packages you've produced are very > different to the existing PHP packages and fairly unusual in terms of > just being plain Debian packages (I'm thinking mostly of yada here). > Doing more incremental changes would make it much easier for people to > pick up and work with what you've done. Let me explain my opinion: I have a time for developing the packages with yada. I don't want to switch to other system like dpatch or cdbs or plain debhelper because I think it would be more difficult for me to maintain my packages and it would be plain nonsense. I want to make my job easier, not harder. The standards for Debian Project are the Debian Policy and the Debian Developer's Reference. Where in these documents is paragraph describing that the debhelper (or cdbs, dpatch, yada, plain dpkg) is the only tool which I can utilise? We have an experimental area in the distribution. Even if the php5 packages are not ready to the sarge release, it SHOULD go at least to experimental. No packages = no progress. I don't care that my packages will appear in official archive. I really want to see ANY official php5 packages in the distribution. I need them. People need them. I didn't found anything in the distro so I made them. If you don't think they are good, please provide better packages. I'd like to see constructive criticism. There is no php5 packages in distro and it is very sad. The bureaucracy in the Debian Project is absolutly frightening. I've never seen so many FUD before. -- .''`.Piotr Roszatycki, Netia SA : :' :mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Status of PHP5?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:41:33PM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote: > I really want to see ANY official php5 packages in the distribution. I talked to Adam Conrad (it's not difficult), and he says that after Ubuntu Down Under is finished (next weekend) he'll work on php5 packages and get them in Debian (and Ubuntu) quickly. That said, I've since the official PHP5 release personally thought throughout it'd be too late to get them in Sarge properly tested etc, in hindsight, I guess that was wrong, and if I would have known that back then, I'm sure I'd have annoyed Adam until he made those packages, and he'd probably would have made them himself too back then. Getting php4 packages straightened out though (php4 from the apache1 php4 module to being a dummy package, libapache-mod-php4 being the new name, php4-cgi vs php4-cli split), was good to be done first, so that php5 packages can be the same from the start and not carry a whole bunch of legacy code. This is good from a least-surprises-to-the-user POV. --Jeroen Speaking on behalf of himself -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#286214: ITP: kwin-style-asteroid -- Pixel-for-pixel clone of Win2000 GUI style for KDE
Josselin Mouette wrote: > Our GDM themes are all in a single package; do you think it would do any > good to separate them, only to save 1 MB of download? Our users would be Each of your GDM themes takes much less than each of KDE themes of mine, which makes such comparision quite pointless. > lost; there's no way you can tell which GDM theme you want before having > seen what they look like. It's exactly the same for kwin themes: if the [...] > all of them and test them. That's when a single package becomes handy. Since I'm not a DD I not going to argue any longer. I personally hate bloatware and think that the combining lot of separate binary packages into one sucks. However I one tell me how to seamesly (with not much work) combine these binary packages into one *.deb I'll give it a try. Any hand? Regards, -- "Daddy, what "Formatting drive C:" means?"... Marcin http://wfmh.org.pl/carlos/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
free accounts on a Debian "sarge" server
Hi, Debian people, We are offering free accounts on a Debian "sarge" server, including ssh, vnc/X11, web, email, rsync, svn, darcs, ultra-fast internet access and many more services to come - basically we're happy to set up whatever services you might want. We also offer some free "human" services, i.e. technical support, web design, programming and mentoring. Please see our website for more info: http://nipl.net/ We are offering accounts to the public purely as a community service, and we hope this will be especially interesting to Debian users, as the machine is running sarge. We are NOT out to make money; this is a free service, with no strings attached. If you would like an account, please send me (not the list) an ssh public key and your preferred login name, and I'll set it up after checking that you're trustable. peace, Sam P.S. I posted a similar announcement to debian-user a few days ago, but I feel it's worth repeating this once. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
Am Dienstag, 26. April 2005 01.29 schrieb Jeroen van Wolffelaar: Morning Thanks for your explanations and don't take my mail as rant, it's just a question. > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 04:34:41PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > > mplayer 1.0pre7 is ready and packaged at > > http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge > > > > a. > > > > ps: still no news from ftpmasters... hope they at least will try to read > > http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer.html [snip] > - Patents: The big issue with mplayer a.t.m. I'm myself not very > following the patent stuff, but as far as I understood, certain > patents hold by the MPEG organisation, esp. those w.r.t. encoding of > MPEG data streams, are actively being enforced, (again afaik) in the > United States in particular. See [1] for more information of what I > believe is relevant here. Unfortunately, links there mostly either > shine in unavailability (404 etc) or utter vagueness and > non-information (I couldn't find any bit of useful patenting > information at [2], for example). The FFII had more useful information > at [3]. > > All this seems to concentrate on MPEG-related *encoding* though, and > not to decoding. Moreover, Debian contains plenty of MPEG-related > decoding software, and the FTP-master policy at least w.r.t. audio > MPEG decoding has always been to not let supposed patents in this area > stand in the way of distributing this software, on the basis that it > seems to be an unenforceable patent, or at least, it isn't enforced > (and giving in to any patent would mean Debian could not distribute > anything). I see no reason why MPEG videa decoding would be different in > this respect, again, to the best of my knowledge. > > So, adding these two tentative[4] conclusions together, it seems > likely that if mplayer were demonstrated with reasonable certainty to be > free of MPEG-encoding code, it would be acceptable for inclusion in > main as far as the FTP-masters are concerned (note: We're not (yet?) > saying it's *required* to strip MPEG encoding stuff, but in my personal > opinion, it seems likely that this is what it'll turn out to be. Don't > take my words on too much value though, maybe stripping this won't be > required after all, but in any case, if it isn't there, we don't need to > think/discuss about it -- reinclusion of the encoding stuff can then > later separately be discussed). But what is the difference of mplayers encoding capabilities to ffmpegs encoding capabilities (from it's description: "encoding formats (MPEG, DivX, MPEG4, AC3, DV, ...).") which is in unstable and testing? [snip] thx for all your work Mario -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: definition of "use"
On 4/26/05, James William Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Before I get into any details, this discussion is about the definition
> of the word 'use' in the context of copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17[1]),
> and perhaps whatever extra insights the connotations of the fair license
> might provide within its single, compound sentence.
>
> This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
> the context of copyright law is as follows:
>
>6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
> of owning property; "we were given the use of his boat"
> [syn: {enjoyment}]
>(From WordNet 2.0)
> (dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
> net)
That's fine, but as you probably do realize, the word "use" is too
wide and too unspecific. Having a license that doesn't state
specifically what rights are or aren't granted is due to bring
misunderstandings.
If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of
owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind
of hard to 'own'), then you should say that.
You could go on dealing what does the copyright law defines and what
it doesn't, but since there's not one but many different copyright
laws (every country has it's own) it's always better to be as specific
as possible.
So, my suggestion is: rephrase the license to convey to every person
the meaning you want it to convey. Then the problem ends.
--
Besos,
Marga
Re: definition of "use"
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:23 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> >This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
> >the context of copyright law is as follows:
> >
> > 6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
> > of owning property; "we were given the use of his boat"
> > [syn: {enjoyment}]
> > (From WordNet 2.0)
> >(dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
> >net)
>
> This definition does not match the definition of "usar" (=to use) in
> Brazilian Law, which is based on possession, not ownership.
Ignoring the context of the source is no way to make an appropriate
translation. If the above is the definition of 'use' in the context of
copyright law, then "usar" is an inappropriate translation as it fails
to carry the same effect/meaning.
To give a more extreme example of the above, if "instrument" were to be
translated into a word that means "a device used to make audible music",
then the entire license would become ridiculous.
> >So, what is the definition of the word 'use'? Does it *only* mean to
> >execute a program? Or to *only* read a book? Or to *only* listen to that
> >music?
> >
> In Brazilian "computer programs" law, what we *do* have is that using a
> program is defined by its "use license contract" terms, meaning the
> execution of the program under those terms -- limited by our "fair use
> clauses" (art. 6Â Computer Programs Law [L.9609/98]: one backup copy;
> citation with source in context of education; similarity by
> functionality; integration on/to other systems) and by our (very heavy)
> consumer-protection law.
>
> In the case of non-computer-programs-stuff, what we do have is a statute
> limitation clause (art. 46 Author's Rights Act [L.9610/98]: lots of
> stuff, among them musical execution in your home or in schools).
Yes, Title 17 has similar limitations on the exclusive rights.
> So, yes, one can suppose safely that the word "use" in the case of a
> computer program license means executing such program; in the case of a
> music, means listening to it in a private/familiar environment or in a
> school; and in the case of a computer library, the execution of its API
> by other programs.
I think one could safely say that of "usar" in the context of Brazilian
law, but, apparently, not of "use" in the context of U.S. copyright law
and Title 17.
--
Regards, James William Pye
Bug#306468: ITP: bluetooth-alsa -- Provides a an interface between bluetooth headsets and ALSA.
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Itay Ben-Yaacov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: bluetooth-alsa Version : 0.4 Upstream Author : Brad Midgley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/bluetooth-alsa/ * License : GPL/LGPL Description : Provides a an interface between bluetooth headsets and ALSA. Bluetooth-alsa Project This project provides a way to use a bluetooth headset with Linux. We do this currently by making an alsa kernel driver which uses bluez to reach the headset. It works well enough now to get voice-quality audio to and from most headsets. (From README) -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-pisicuta-2 Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: definition of "use"
Margarita Manterola writes: > If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of > owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind of > hard to 'own'), then you should say that. One can (and usually does) own a copy of a piece of software. US copyright law grants specific rights to the owner of a copy of a piece of software. Better to be more specific, though. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large ramdisks, kernel memory space issue
--- Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > salman h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi All, > > > > I'm using a slightly modified Debian kernel along > with > > PXELinux to boot a machine over the network. > > > > My kernel's memory footprint is quite large (400 > megs) > > because it pre-allocates memory for some processes > (in > > the interest of speedier process execution). > > > > My ramdisk size is about 500 megs. > > > > Now, the ramdisk has to fit in the lower 1 Gig of > > memory which the kernel can access. So a ramdisk > > bigger than 500 megs cannot be loaded by the > kernel, > > since the ramdisk would exceed the 1 Gig kernel > memory > > space bound. > > > > My question: Is there an easy way make the Linux > > kernel be able to access the entire memory space? > This > > way I can easily load larger ramdisks on my target > > machines which have 2 Gigs of physical memory. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Salman > > Just a thought but why not load the ramdisk > yourself. > > Write a small initrd that sets up large ramdisk and > downloads an image > from the network. > > MfG > Goswin There's no reason why that would not work. Except the constraints of my problem are such that I may not always have the network available for downloading a second ramdisk. I realize I mentioned PXELinux and network booting earlier. But let us say I was using ISOLinux for CD booting without network connectivity. I suppose I could store the second ramdisk on the CD and mount it from there during init. So that would work as well. It looks like the best solution right now. Thanks for you help. Salman __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large ramdisks, kernel memory space issue
--- "J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, salman h wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I'm using a slightly modified Debian kernel along > with > > PXELinux to boot a machine over the network. > > > > My kernel's memory footprint is quite large (400 > megs) > > because it pre-allocates memory for some processes > (in > > the interest of speedier process execution). > > > > My ramdisk size is about 500 megs. > > > > Now, the ramdisk has to fit in the lower 1 Gig of > > memory which the kernel can access. So a ramdisk > > bigger than 500 megs cannot be loaded by the > kernel, > > since the ramdisk would exceed the 1 Gig kernel > memory > > space bound. > > This 1GB boundary makes me think of the High Memory > support (CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM) > kernel config option. You might want to try > different values for that option, > even though they might not be intuitively applicable > to your case. > > Regards, > Anne Bezemer What you said makes sense. I spent some time reading up on the memory organization structure of linux. It lead me to believe that if I enable CONFIG_HIMEM in the kernel the it would be able to access the entire 4GB memory address space. I tried that, but no success. Googling around, I found a simple write-up on kernel memory organization which had a link to a patch to split kernel/user memory allocation. Here is the link to the article: http://kerneltrap.org/node/2450 That didn't work either though. So I'm still fairly confused about how the kernel manages higher memory. Perhaps there's a hard upper-limit on the size of the initial ramdisk? I don't know... Anyway, another user suggested a feasible sounding solution: Make the initrd small enough to fit in low mem. Mount more ramdisks later during the init process (either by downloading from the server, or from the CD if using ISOLinux, etc). I hope that makes sense. Thanks for your help. Salman __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gotovina - Full cooperation
Dears, if you are interesting for case Gotovina and media freedom in Croatia, please look those links: Gotovina - Full cooperation HAK spy's pantry Freedom guaranteed by Constitution Best regards, Zeljko Peratovic III Pile 2510 000 ZagrebCroatiahome: +385 1 606 1570fax: + 385 1 606 1569gsm: +385 91 22 999 66
Bug#306492: ITP: weechat -- Fast, light and extensible IRC client
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Sebastien Helleu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: weechat Version : 0.1.1 Upstream Author : Sebastien Helleu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://weechat.flashtux.org/ * License : (GPL) Description : Fast, light and extensible IRC client WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a fast and light IRC client for many operating systems. Everything can be done with a keyboard. It is customizable and extensible with scripts. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.10 Locale: LANG=fr_FR, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR (charmap=ISO-8859-1) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large ramdisks, kernel memory space issue
salman h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyway, another user suggested a feasible sounding > solution: > Make the initrd small enough to fit in low mem. > Mount more ramdisks later during the init process > (either by downloading from the server, or from the CD > if using ISOLinux, etc). > > I hope that makes sense. > > Thanks for your help. > > Salman If you have a CD/DVD then place the filesystem in a file there. On boot setup a loop device (or cloop for more space) for that file and a second loop device on a sparse file in tmpfs (or use a ramdisk ramdisk). Then setup the tmpfs loop device as copy-on-write storage device for the first loop device (same config lvm snapshots use) with dmsetup. Now you have a writeable block device that starts of being completly on cdrom and stores any changes in tmpfs. Much more memory efficient and faster to boot too. But beware, if you have too many changes and the COW device gets full bad things tend to happen. Make it big enough / have enough ram. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 08:30:06PM +0200, Mario Fux wrote: > But what is the difference of mplayers encoding capabilities to ffmpegs > encoding capabilities (from it's description: "encoding formats (MPEG, DivX, > MPEG4, AC3, DV, ...).") which is in unstable and testing? None that I know of, but as I noted, there's a lot of "if", "maybe", "don't know" in my mail, also evidenced by the fact that mplayer is still in NEW, and not rejected or accepted. Yes, ffmpeg would be the same issue I mentioned (but it's not sure mplayer doesn't have more issues than that), but just as we have no certainty that mpeg encoding is okay, we also have no certainty that mpeg encoding is *not* okay. So while this is still unclear, we're leaving the situation as it is, not making it potentially worse by accepting mplayer, but also not seeing enough grounds to remove ffmpeg. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#306268: ITP: connect -- Establish socket connection using SOCKS4 or 5 and HTTP tunnel.
[Philippe COVAL] > * Package name: connect > Version : 1.93 That's a terrible package name. What will the GNUSTEP people do if they ever want to package something that manages SMB client mounts? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Key Signing in Vancouver, BC
Hey! Shaun Jackman generously offered to meet in New Westminister over lunch to exchange gpg signatures Meeting other debian/linux/open source folks would be totally awesome! I can be in New West at lunch time every day next week - is anyone less available? Can someone recommend a convenient, easy-to-find location where we (everyone interested!) can meet? I know New West only casually - but someplace close to the Sky Train where the people can enjoy lunch would probably be good : ) Best wishes! Jack On Apr 19, 2005, at 2:13 PM, Shaun Jackman wrote: Free Java is still difficult, but it's getting better all the time! If you'd like to arrange a key signing over lunch some time, I'm up for it. I'm in New Westminster. This chap [1] also emailed me a while back for a key signing, but we haven't met up yet. Why don't you a post a "Key signing in Vancouver, BC" message to debian-devel while you're at it. Cheers, Shaun [1] Jay MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 4/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Shaun! I'm Jack I'm getting my first Debian package into the repository & my sponsor recommended getting some signatures on my gpg key I'm out in Langley, but I'm in & around Vancouver & the lower mainland often enough - are you willing to meet to sign my key? I see that among your packages, you maintain some java & eclipse stuff - which is awesome! I'm struggling with eclipse & free java as I speak : ) Regards! Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:59:36AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 08:30:06PM +0200, Mario Fux wrote: > > But what is the difference of mplayers encoding capabilities to ffmpegs > > encoding capabilities (from it's description: "encoding formats (MPEG, > > DivX, > > MPEG4, AC3, DV, ...).") which is in unstable and testing? > None that I know of, but as I noted, there's a lot of "if", "maybe", > "don't know" in my mail, also evidenced by the fact that mplayer is > still in NEW, and not rejected or accepted. Yes, ffmpeg would be the > same issue I mentioned (but it's not sure mplayer doesn't have more > issues than that), but just as we have no certainty that mpeg encoding > is okay, we also have no certainty that mpeg encoding is *not* okay. So > while this is still unclear, we're leaving the situation as it is, not > making it potentially worse by accepting mplayer, but also not seeing > enough grounds to remove ffmpeg. Would this be solved by linking mplayer against the ffmpeg package? I would think it'd be pretty easy to get a safe mplayer into Debian by dropping all the controversial code, and only including things by linking against the code already in Debian, or including code that is already in Debian by other packages (if I recall, A52 decoding is statically linked into xine, so it shouldn't be a problem to have mplayer statically link and A52 decoder too). -- --- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE 8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] "No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?" -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean" This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. --- pgpENjiMopYAp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#305753: general: 38 packages still use 'Origin: debian'
"Thijs Kinkhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So to conclude, there's no reason for that mass bug filing apart from your > "feeling" that it "looks funny". Since it poses no real problem at all, I > don't even see a lintian-test being warranted for this. This should indeed > be closed unless you can come up with some real reason why this should be > changed. No, it's just a minor bug. So it should be filed as a minor bug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Key Signing in Vancouver, BC
I can definitely recommend Kirin Sushi, which is across the street from the Skytrain station. There is also the Spaghetti Factory next door. Not quite as convenient, but up the street is Hon's Won Ton House and a tasty little Indian restaurant. I can meet for lunch any day next week. Cheers, Shaun On 4/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey! Shaun Jackman generously offered to meet in New Westminister over > lunch to exchange gpg signatures > > Meeting other debian/linux/open source folks would be totally awesome! > > I can be in New West at lunch time every day next week - is anyone less > available? > > Can someone recommend a convenient, easy-to-find location where we > (everyone interested!) can meet? I know New West only casually - but > someplace close to the Sky Train where the people can enjoy lunch would > probably be good : ) > > Best wishes! > Jack
Re: Key Signing in Vancouver, BC
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:53:05PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hey! Shaun Jackman generously offered to meet in New Westminister over > lunch to exchange gpg signatures > > Meeting other debian/linux/open source folks would be totally awesome! If you're willing to cross the border, you could go to the Northwest Linuxfest (http://www.linuxnorthwest.org/) on Saturday in Bellingham. I probably won't go unless it rains, but a few other developers are planning to attend. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: free accounts on a Debian "sarge" server
> "Sam" == Sam Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We are offering free accounts on a Debian "sarge" server, including > ssh, vnc/X11, web, email, rsync, svn, darcs, ultra-fast internet access > and many more services to come - basically we're happy to set up > whatever services you might want. We also offer some free "human" > services, i.e. technical support, web design, programming and mentoring. Nice :-). What hardware? I'd like access to some ppc64 hardware. Debian ppc machines all seem to be ppc32. Ganesan -- Ganesan Rajagopal (rganesan at debian.org) | GPG Key: 1024D/5D8C12EA Web: http://employees.org/~rganesan| http://rganesan.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
