On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 04:00:27PM -0400, Ian L. wrote:
> Please remove my two email addresses that end in "@logicallemon.com" from
> the following URL:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00162.html
>
> Thank you.
Debian does not redact its mailing list archives
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 04:52:24AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The definition of source is "the preferred form of the work for making
> > modifications", selected from those forms which are available to you.
>
> No. Where is that last clause in the GPL? Hint: it isn't, as
> indicated
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 06:19:19PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > > Should this be done in the debian diff, or a new orig.tar.gz?
> >
> > You would have to make a new orig.tar.gz. Debian is not allowed to
> > distribute the "original" sources at al
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They could, and we'd laugh at them. The point is that we would be perfectly
> within our rights to distribute it, and that whether or not we chose to do
> so would be an entirely separate question.
No. If you distribute your own files under the GPL, bu
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it,
>
> See, we're fine.
Having received no source code, we can distribute that empty set.
This does not allow us to distribute object code.
The permiss
This is a public discussion, and I'm not interested in having it in
private.
(as such, replies to other portions omitted)
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:36:24PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> It's moot really, as we almost certainly don't *want* to distribute it as
> 'free' anyway.
I think the real q
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:54:19AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > As I said, I think all those who are saying otherwise are guilty of
> > confusing what we're allowed to do with what we want to do.
>
> Or, possibly, you're not seeing a crucial aspect of the whole debate.
> That's my opinion, any
Please remove my two email addresses that end in "@logicallemon.com" from
the following URL:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00162.html
Thank you.
--
Ian L.
http://www.logicallemon.com/
- Perl, Mac OS X, Zsh, Vim
- bass guitar, downtempo electronica
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 07:08:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I knew someone would come up with that. There is however no other reasonable
> interpretation of the GPL possible.
>
> If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then I can immediately
> prevent you from distributing, say, g
Disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD, TINLA
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 01:07:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
...
> > License to use this module/library and make use of in derivative works is
^^
> > Ais granted to all, freely, provi
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 02:08, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:27:29AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> > You're the one amending "selected from those forms which are available
> > to you." The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of
> > source, but it's not the GPL'
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 10:18, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> If you took the obfuscated code, did your best to unobfuscate it by
> applying both automatic reformating and manual editing, and then made
> some functional changes in it, or even non-functional changes, such as
> adding comments, I think
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > You're the one amending "selected from those forms which are available
> > to you." The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of
> > source, but it's not the GPL's.
>
> I knew someone would come up with that. There is however no other reasonab
If you took the obfuscated code, did your best to unobfuscate it by
applying both automatic reformating and manual editing, and then made
some functional changes in it, or even non-functional changes, such as
adding comments, I think you could then claim that what you have
created is now the "prefe
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:27:29AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > And given the package with which we have been provided, that is the
> > obfuscated
> > C.
>
> I think you're the only programmer I've ever seen claim that obfuscated
> source is a preferred form for modification. It's perfectly
On Monday, Aug 26, 2002, at 03:54 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
License to use this module/library and make use of in derivative works
is
Ais granted to all, freely, provided that this module is identified as
[CENSORED] and notice of other contributors be provided in
any material refere
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:46:27PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Michael Cardenas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately, I only know of two ttf fonts that are explicitly
> > licensed under the gpl: dustismo, from cheapskate fonts, and metatype,
> > from metatype.sourcefor
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 00:54, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:52PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Please point out exactly which section of the GPL would grant us such
> > rights. Remember, rights not explicitly granted are withheld under
> > default copyright law.
>
> 1. Y
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 05:54:07PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it,
You omitted #3, which amends #1, and we're not obviously "fine" there.
I don't know how you can possibly argue that the source we've
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:52PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > Consider the case where a GPLed program is distributed with .o files
> > > that are linked in at link time. The author could say, under the same
> > > logic and with a straight face, that the .o is "the preferred form for
> > > m
20 matches
Mail list logo