Re: LZW patented file left in .orig.tar source package?

2002-10-30 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 10:11:17AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > What do you think about "a patent suddenly forces the charge of use > retoroactively"? I'm not sure such a patent license would be legal, unless the original patent license allowed for such a possible future retroactive change. Any

Re: LZW patented file left in .orig.tar source package?

2002-10-30 Thread GOTO Masanori
At Sat, 26 Oct 2002 20:13:21 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:09:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I disagree. The DFSG speaks explicitly of the licenses of the software > > being distributed; software that may be illegal to use or distribute for > > reasons *other t

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2002-10-30 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:38:58AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > intellectual property" does not mean that the creator of a derived work > > has exclusive control over that work to the same extent as over a > > completely original work. > He does not, but he does have rig

Re: Berkeley DB curious licensing practice

2002-10-30 Thread Joe Moore
Sean Shaleh Perry said: > Remember, you can create a derived work from a GPL program and give it > to every person in your company they are the ONLY people who have the > right to ask for source code. The GPL only gives rights people who > have possession of a binary. GPL 3.b) states: >>>Accom

Re: RFC and other standard.

2002-10-30 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Giacomo Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > DFSG is only for software or also for documentation? That has been the subject of long and heroic flame wars in the past. I'd advice you to go back in the archives and locate the most recent one (unless memory fails me you ought't go longer than ma

RFC and other standard.

2002-10-30 Thread Giacomo Catenazzi
Hello. I see the critical bug report of doc-rfc. Thus I have some questions: DFSG is only for software or also for documentation? Surelly we can (better MUST) include license in main, and the license are clearly unmodifiable, but what about documentation? I hope documentation will be "free", bu

Re: Fwd: Re: libjpeg for debian, autoconf

2002-10-30 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit James Michael DuPont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that the configure.in is sufficiently important for further > > development (and sufficiently nontrivial for mortals to reconstruct > > from configure) that the spirit of the social contr

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2002-10-30 Thread Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:21:30PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > From the posted link, Spanish law seems consistent with copyright law as > I'm familiar with it here: > > Artículo 11. Obras derivadas. (..) > This is the familiar definition of a derived work. "without prejudicing > the right