Do you believe it is inconsistent with the philosophy of the Free Software
movement to accept any more restrictions on classes of computer-handled data
that are not executable code than we do on executable code?
I think the moral requirements for freedom depend on the kind of data
or w
Henning Makholm said:
> As I read the Social Contract it clearly implies that Debian is
> providing this authorization unconditionally to the public at large
> (and it is doubtful whether the licenses of the software in Debian
> would allow otherwise), so Compuclick is factually correct in claiming
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 04:02:29PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Then again, the above issue has been pointed out to you many times,
> > yet you choose to ignore that particular issue whenever you feel like it.
>
> I don't ignore it, I disagree with it. I have spent lots of e-mails
> explaining
Raul Miller wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > What about the Qt header files, which are included at compile time?
>
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:08:16AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Right. And those are distributed in source form.
>
> Not under terms which satisfy the GPL.
Says you :-).
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, David Starner wrote:
> > of the page at tpm.seul.org. Even though TPM was developed in Australia,
> > would distribution of this program in the US (or export of the program
> > from within the US) put Debian at risk of legal action by the patent
> > holders?
>
> Yes. Cf. the
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the
> definition of what the complete source code is. This is provided in
> the second sentence of the ultimate para. in Section 3, which provides
>
> For an executable wo
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > What about the Qt header files, which are included at compile time?
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:08:16AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Right. And those are distributed in source form.
Not under terms which satisfy the GPL.
The GPL requires that there be no proprietary
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > >
> > > (*) The source code must be complete.
> >
> > Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the definition
> > of what
> > the complete source code is. This is provided in the second
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> >
> > (*) The source code must be complete.
>
> Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the definition of
> what
> the complete source code is. This is provided in the second sentence of the
> ultimate para. in S
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small)
>>> COMPUCLICK IS AUTHORIZED MANUFACTURER OF THE OFFICIAL CD OF DEBIAN
> We don't authorize anyone to do anything.
As far as there is such thing as a compilation copyright (which I
don't think the Berne convention recognizes, but many jurisdictions
do, in
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is jurisprudential precedent on this issue, at least in the United
> States.[*]
> It has been ruled that typefaces are not copyrightable, but fonts are.
Interesting. I'd have though that the typeface was what carried the
copyright since that
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the definition of
> what
> the complete source code is. This is provided in the second sentence of the
> ultimate para. in Section 3, which provides
Could you please limit
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 01:30:12PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> > > COMPUCLICK IS AUTHORIZED MANUFACTURER OF THE OFFICIAL CD OF DEBIAN AND BY
> > > EACH CD THAT YOU BUY TO US YOU CONTRIBUTE TO AUTOMATICAMENTE A DOLAR TO
> > > ALL PROJECTS DEBIAN/GNU BY INTERVAL OF FOUNDATION SPI
What kind of crap
I share similar views to Mr. Hutton. Allegations have been made that KDE is
responsible of GPL abuse and copyright violation. The fact that the GPL is
generally misunderstood has served to amplify these allegations. It took me
a considerable amount of time to find Andreas Pour's arguments in the se
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the
> definition of what the complete source code is. This is provided in the
> second sentence of the ultimate para. in Section 3, which provides
>
> For an executable
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:14:52PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Well, I can't argue with that. But I'm happy for not being the
> judge who - in these days of digital typesetting - must decide
> when something is an alternative representation of a font and
> when it is just a document which happe
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:57:14PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> As I understand your proposed license, it has no problems falling within
> the existing DFSG. This is not true for some of the others; whether
> Debian
> wants to extend its penumbra in the manner I described is somet
[cc'ed to legal too]
Jordi said:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 05:49:07PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> > COMPUCLICK IS AUTHORIZED MANUFACTURER OF THE OFFICIAL CD OF DEBIAN AND BY
> > EACH CD THAT YOU BUY TO US YOU CONTRIBUTE TO AUTOMATICAMENTE A DOLAR TO
> > ALL PROJECTS DEBIAN/GNU BY INTERVAL OF FOUND
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > What does it mean for a program to accompany itself? Why do you raise
> > > this point?
> >
> > It's not that the program accompanies itself. The paragraph of
> > Section 3 in question deals in terms
This is an expanded version of my original response to this
message. Andreas indicated that he didn't understand why
what I was saying was significant.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > What does it mean for a program to accompany itself? Why do you raise
> > thi
20 matches
Mail list logo
