On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 06:21:32PM -0500, Stephen Ryan wrote:
[...]
I'd just like to say that I concur completely with Stephen Ryan's
analysis in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Thanks for stepping back and taking a look at the forest while I
eyeballed the trees, Mr. Ryan.
--
G. Branden Robinson
I've subscribed to the debian-legal mailing list purely out of interest,
and have seen the request for comments on the GNU FDL 1.2 Draft.
Several of the discussions on debian-legal over the past six months have
got me to thinking, and looking over the draft I have finally figured
out precisely wha
Hi,
in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200201/msg00226.html
I asked if Debian binary packages have to include TeXinfo source files to
comply with GFDL section 3 (which is IMHO very different from GPL clause 3.c).
As this draft does not significantly change section 3, I am st
begin Branden Robinson quotation:
> Nick, I can't read your mails! They appear to empty except for some
> bizarre attachment which crashes my mail reader and pops up a dialog
> that says "Your computer is now stoned." Help!
>
> >;-)
Perhaps your AOL window is in front of your Debian window!
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 12:47:33PM -0800, Nick Moffitt wrote:
Nick, I can't read your mails! They appear to empty except for some
bizarre attachment which crashes my mail reader and pops up a dialog
that says "Your computer is now stoned." Help!
>;-)
--
G. Branden Robinson|
begin Nick Moffitt quotation:
> I am disappointed that PostScript is considered an "opaque"
> format. It is a plain ASCII vector and text description format,
> though opaque bitmaps may be included. There exist Free utilities for
> the manipulation of EPS and PS images for those who do no
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/copyri
begin Branden Robinson quotation:
[...]
> > +formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include PostScript,
> > +PDF, proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by
> > +proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or
> > processing tools are not generally avail
reopen 131997
thanks
>* GLUT headers and examples are actually DFSG free,
> see debian/copyright (Closes: #131997)
The headers say
/* Copyright (c) Mark J. Kilgard, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998. */
/* This program is freely distributable without licensing fees and is
provided without gua
Hello,
I am a Debian GNU/Linux Developer and frequent participant on Debian's
mailing list for legal issues, where the Debian Project discusses and
applies the Debian Free Software Guidelines ("DFSG") to software
submitted for distribution by the Debian Project. For a work to to be
an official co
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 01:10:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Last I checked, however, the diff that the FSF posted was not correct;
> the actual draft contained new language not mentioned in the diff. This
> was probably an oversight.
>
> Hrm, now the diff isn't even available:
The proble
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 09:46:36AM +0100, Thomas Seyrat wrote:
> # BabelWeb should not be used as a lucrative tools without author
> # autorization.
The author has created an inconsistently licensed work; the only safe
thing for Debian to do is regard it as completely proprietary.
Also, if this p
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 11:23:32AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Does it mean that you would actually agree on removing GFDL covered manuals
> with invariant sections from Debian?
Keep in mind that even I don't advocate that if the manual has no
Invariant Sections. The new GFDL draft is quite int
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It depends on the interpretation of "should". Hopefully a lawyer-type
> will respond to the post, because as far as I interpret, "should" means
> optional. Strongly encouraged, but not required. I bet the author wants
> to use the words "can not be" or
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> do you also consider :
>
> 10 REM
>
> as a piece of software ?
Who cares?
The current DFSG requires that a license permit free distribution of
the work when in an aggregation. As long as O'Reilly understands that
"aggregation" includes even "trivial" aggrega
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier) writes:
> Does it mean that you would actually agree on removing GFDL covered manuals
> with invariant sections from Debian?
Like I said a while ago, I'm nowhere near as certain as I was when
that thread started. Right now, I don't know what to think.
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:46:36 +0100
Thomas Seyrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # BabelWeb should not be used as a lucrative tools without author
> # autorization.
>
> Except for the bad english, I do not know what to think about this :
> the point 6 of DFSG insists on the fact that the license
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 01:48:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What is written is that free distribution of aggregation with software musrt
> > be permitted. And software originally means a significant amount of machine
> > code which can be executed
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 01:48:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[...]
> > Also, even if you consider documentation as software, there is
> > another obscure interpretational leap from there to considering
> > printed documentation as software.
> >
> > I know many in the free softare community
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does an empty one liner really adds something to the information contained in
> the said documentation ?
There is no such thing as an "empty one liner". If it's empty, then
it's not one line, it's zero. A one liner adds something more than
.01 units of
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is written is that free distribution of aggregation with software musrt
> be permitted. And software originally means a significant amount of machine
> code which can be executed somewhere.
Um, no. It doesn't mean "significant". Nowhere in DFSG does the
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 01:29:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why be obscure when the point mentioned by Stefano is the one applying here
> > ?
>
> It's one point; I'm not sure it's the only point.
>
> > Here, i am not aggreeing with you, aggrega
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 01:22:56AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Maybe, but it is not what is written. Also i guess if you ask all
> > debian developpers about this, not 100% of them will agree with you
> > on what they read there.
>
> What is written
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why be obscure when the point mentioned by Stefano is the one applying here ?
It's one point; I'm not sure it's the only point.
> Here, i am not aggreeing with you, aggregating with an empty content
> one liner is not an aggregation, like adding 0 to something
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:51:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Tell me if I understand correctly: I (we) have to remove the DFSG
> > requirement fully not to violate the DFSG point "License Must Not
> > Contaminate Other Software", righ
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe, but it is not what is written. Also i guess if you ask all
> debian developpers about this, not 100% of them will agree with you
> on what they read there.
What is written is that free distribution of aggregations must be
permitted. Aggregation with one
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:48:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think if we were trully concerned with the user's right, we would fix the
> > DFSG with regard to this ASAP, and not juggle with interpretations like you
> > are doing here.
>
> "juggl
Thomas Seyrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The software, called babelweb (see #131258), is licensed as GPL, but
> the author added the following two lines to each script composing
> it :
>
> # BabelWeb should not be used as a lucrative tools without author
> # autorization.
The author has
Hi,
I'm facing a licensing problem with a software I intend to package
for Debian.
The software, called babelweb (see #131258), is licensed as GPL, but
the author added the following two lines to each script composing
it :
# BabelWeb should not be used as a lucrative tools without a
29 matches
Mail list logo
