Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 12:03:16AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: > Thomas, you rightly say that only Debian can interpret DFSG. While I > agree with you in that, it seems that now you want to have the power > to interpret the word "free". This is, in my opinion, a far-fetched It's already been expl

rsaeuro license change?

I'd like to package RSAEURO 1.04i for inclusion in Debian GNU/Linux, but there are provisions in the license grant which are incompatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. See . Unless a few small changes are made to the license, I won't be

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas, you rightly say that only Debian can interpret DFSG. While I > agree with you in that, it seems that now you want to have the power > to interpret the word "free". This is, in my opinion, a far-fetched > idea. TeX community used the word "free"

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 07 Aug 2002 17:41:44 -0700 > > Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > We already discussed this. Because this is the goal of TeX. That is > > why TeX uses scaled point for calculations. The aim is to have exactly > > same output

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We already discussed this. Because this is the goal of TeX. That is > why TeX uses scaled point for calculations. The aim is to have exactly > same output on same machines. But then the goal of TeX is to be non-free. However, as already indicated by m

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 07:23:24PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: > Note that etex, omega and pdftex do not make this claim: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ etex > This is e-TeX, Version 3.14159-2.1 (Web2C 7.3.7) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ pdftex > This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159-1.00a-prete

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:50:32 -0400 > From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > He said "the package name gets changed". The package name is "tetex", > not "tex", so that's been done. ("Package name" has a very specific > meaning in Debian, and there is no "tex" package in Debian.) The >

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 07 Aug 2002 15:34:43 -0700 > Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document > > exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the > > same as TeX on the

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 06:26:30PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: > > > So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the > > > description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant. > > > > Which has been done, already, no? s/tex/tetex/. > > Glenn, to say the truth, I am appaled by the

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document > exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the > same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine. Sure! But why do you need that the TeX that J

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:43:37 -0400 > From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the > > description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant. > > Which has been don

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:40:14 +0100 > From: Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >=20 > > I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot > > substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.=20 > > So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added t

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot > > substitute a new font for it without violating trademark. > > So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the > description. Boo hoo

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:29:21PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: > > Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:09:17 +0100 > > From: Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Since it is almost certainly not possible to trademark a filename > > anyway, the solution seems fairly clear. We find a free font to >

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote: > Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL FAQ, it > does) Yes, but it's not _creating_ a combined work (or a modified work, or whatever), but _distributing_ it that is the issue. -- Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PRO

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

Nick Phillips wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:01:31PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: >> So the user, exercising his right to modify FireBird, makes the 1-line >> change (replace -leditline with -lreadline) to use GNU Readline. He >> never distributes his modified FireBird++, but is in violation of th

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:01:31PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > > If a user were to make modifications to a local copy of the library, > > then yes, it would have to be done in a way that complies with the > > terms of the GPL. > > The specific example of FireBird was a program (GPL-incompatible lic

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: >> Steve Langasek wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: >> >> Steve Langasek wrote: >> >> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a >> >> > program. >> >> > Bu

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > >> Steve Langasek wrote: > >> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a > >> > program. > >> > But it would be illegal for Debi

Re: Is no-advertising clause GPL-compatible?

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 09:17:21AM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > My question is this: some pieces of code have an approximately BSD license > but with a no-advertising clause, such as the following: > > * Copyright (c) 1991, Visual Edge Software Ltd. > * > * ALL RIGHTS RESERVE

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: >> Steve Langasek wrote: >> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a >> > program. >> > But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird >> > that uses libreadline. > >> On

Mr.Kailash

CONFIDENTIAL U.K. FAX NUMBER: 44-870-1309342 Dear Sir, Pardon me for starting this great proposal this way as it might surprise you. My name is Yuvraj Kailash a native of Nepal and attorney to the late king of Nepal who died as a result of loss in temper caused by an argument between him and hi

Re: [kaffe] Using kaffe(GPL2) with other DFSG-compat licenses

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:09:44PM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote: > This is one of the reasons I find RMS's resistance to digital rights > management fascinating. The one facility that could insure GPL > compliance would be DRM features built into the library loaders (ld and > ClassLoaders) but that'

Re: Software Patents Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 10:01:39PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > Ugh. And here I thought the whole point of a patent was to cover > a novel method of achieving something, not to grant a monopoly on > the thing to be achieved. How naïve you are. Welcome to the new capitalism. Monopolies good.

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: I am afraid you're violating GPL this way. It doesn't matter if you distribute this lib or not. The fact is that you use lib's headers and use lib itself (while compiling and then linking the program). Im not a lawyer, it's been intersting looking over the web on rea

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > [sent only to debian-legal. Comments are program-independant] > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program. > > But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird >

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

[sent only to debian-legal. Comments are program-independant] Steve Langasek wrote: > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program. > But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird > that uses libreadline. On further research, http://www.gnu.org/lic

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 01:24:31PM +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: > W li?cie z ?ro, 07-08-2002, godz. 10:58, Mark O'Donohue pisze: > > Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: > > >A friend of mine reminded me lately, that libreadline is GPL not LGPL > > >library so it can only be used in GPL-compatible softwa

Re: Bug#155721: psi: psi is gpl links to libqssl1 whose license should be modified lgpl therefore not allowed...

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:41:54AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > If psi Depends: on libqssl1, then you have quite clearly stated your > intention to create a derivative work. It doesn't. Psi only Suggests: libqssl1. BTW, the Build-Depends: of psi on libssl-dev actually is a bug, it is not necess

Re: Bug#155721: psi: psi is gpl links to libqssl1 whose license should be modified lgpl therefore not allowed...

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:46:05AM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:32:35PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: > > psi uses a library, libqssl1 which is lgpl. However, since it links > Psi does work perfectly well without libqssl1 installed. So I wouldn't > say it's linked with li

Is no-advertising clause GPL-compatible?

Hi, I am working on packaging Cernlib, a set of high-energy physics tools and libraries written for the CERN laboratories, under the sponsorship of Bas Zoetekouw. According to CERN, they have put Cernlib under the GPL. However, there are still a lot of source code files that have their own lice

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 13:24:31 +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: > > Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's > > probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't > > distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if > > there i

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Yes, it does (literally) Now that I think about it, it meets one of >> the LaTeX project's goals (use of non-standard LaTeX requires a >> conscious decision), but not Thomas's. > > What is this "conscious decision" requir

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with

Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: > Even then (if you could) - the user using such FireBird would be > violating GPL, as he would effectively link GPL-incompatible program to > GPLed library (he won't be able and/or will not want to use empty, stub > lib). Is this really the case? IANAL, but I was under

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

W liście z śro, 07-08-2002, godz. 10:58, Mark O'Donohue pisze: > Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: > >A friend of mine reminded me lately, that libreadline is GPL not LGPL > >library so it can only be used in GPL-compatible software. > >However AFAIK GPL is incompatible with MPL type licenses like IPL > S

Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 05:00:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > No, that's really entirely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant > is whether we're violating IP laws or not, not whether patent holders > think we are, nor whether copyright holders don't really care. Is it? That's easy: we ar

Re: Software Patents Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness

Richard Braakman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 08:50:11PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: > > You can also reason, if a program can cause a general purpose > > processor to do the same thing as a dedicated hardware board > > can do, and that board does something patentable, then the > >

Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL

Hi Grzegorz Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: Hello! A friend of mine reminded me lately, that libreadline is GPL not LGPL library so it can only be used in GPL-compatible software. However AFAIK GPL is incompatible with MPL type licenses like IPL used by FireBird (http://firebird.sourceforge.net/in

Re: Bug#155721: psi: psi is gpl links to libqssl1 whose license should be modified lgpl therefore not allowed...

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:32:35PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: > psi uses a library, libqssl1 which is lgpl. However, since it links Psi does work perfectly well without libqssl1 installed. So I wouldn't say it's linked with libqssl1. Look at it this way: Psi, without qssl, surely is not a proble

Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 01:10:51PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > At 09:42 PM 8/6/02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 03:02:59AM -0500, David Starner wrote: > >> The amount of money to be got from a unknowing non-commercial > >> infringer is also pretty limited. > >The issue is

Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 04:51:22PM +, M. Drew Streib wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 09:42:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Oh, sorry, my bad I wasn't paying attention. Debian includes mp3 decoders > > too; there's been rumours and mild scaremongering about whether mp3 > > decoding has bee

Re: psi: psi is gpl links to libqssl1 whose license should be modified lgpl therefore not allowed...

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:32:35PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: > psi uses a library, libqssl1 which is lgpl. However, since it links > against openssl directly the license of libqssl1 should be a modified > lgpl which would make it incompatible with gpl(?) So psi can not link You could try to get