>And now I wonder if "License: public domain" in debian/copyright is
>enough
>for a DFSG free package.
Public domain is not a license; it is "not copyrighted". The issue
is that the author needs to guarantee that he deliberately abandoned
his copyright, because otherwise he has copyright by d
Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty.
> Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software.
The main problem is that that's simply not true - you _can_ use the
software without accepting the license[1].
If you want to copy or
Please don't CC me on list mail.
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:01, David Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
> > An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
> > novels thems
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
>> Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
>> An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
>> novels themselves?
> Because people might want them. Because apt-get install
> alice-
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 15:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
> > > change.
> > >
> >
> >
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 15:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
> > change.
> >
>
> *When* documentation applies to software. Gosh, has nobody thoug
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:09:08AM +0100, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> (Note that this message is required by GPL clause 2c).
> (admitted, I added the Click lines myself for clarity, but the important
> thing is GPL 2c and the first four lines).
The GPL's requirement is that it be displayed; it doesn't req
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:34PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
> > software ...
>
> I tried very hard last time this issue came up and failed to find any
> where the software
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
> > prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
> > is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:27:29PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
>
> > > - the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
>
> > Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
> > domain. Er, modulo t
Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
> prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
> is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a
> non-free circuit. This is like creating a non-fr
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:27:29PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > - the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
> Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
> domain. Er, modulo the small percentage of life+50 texts. And modulo
> Australia,
>> - the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
>
>Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
>domain. Er, modulo the small percentage of life+50 texts. And modulo
>Australia, which seems to have rejected Feist, although the case is on
>appea
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 16:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Martin Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > And to those who would say: "There's no difference between software and
> > > documentation" I would r
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:18:08PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Then please remove the GPL from all debian packages, and make non-free
> all those that include it. Or can the GPL be modified, can it be changed
> at will? No. Does it make it non-free: NO.
It's a license, and
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> >>Forking a project is not the same as putting words in my mouth I
> >> didn't say and that's what Invariant sections are for.
>
> It's no more (nor less) putting words in your mouth than
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Let's say that the library has two things you can get, the texinfo
> > source files and a pdf generated from them. People are unlikely to
> > print out the texinfo files, so they would naturally try to prin
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Martin Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And to those who would say: "There's no difference between software and
> > documentation" I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
> > writing; specifically, _
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's say that the library has two things you can get, the texinfo
> source files and a pdf generated from them. People are unlikely to
> print out the texinfo files, so they would naturally try to print out
> the pdf. So the library sets the "do not pr
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
> > the software to drive a publicly accessible web server.
>
> I think it would be unfree, and probably even undistributable by Debian in
> non-free (we're not going to require an EULA to rece
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > What can't be avoided is the clause in Section 2
> >
> > You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> > reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribut
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:25:58PM -0600, Eric Baudais wrote:
> The reason for documentation guidelines because the DFSG and GPL only
> protects code. The code is not the same as published text and published
> text has a longer and more established legal history than code does. If
> a person woul
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
> software ...
I tried very hard last time this issue came up and failed to find any
where the software would still be considered free and the EULA had
any effect at all.
> Su
Eric Baudais wrote:
> The only text which can be an invariant section is the text pertaining
> to the author's relationship to the document.
[...] Even entire sections that may not be deleted or changed are
acceptable, as long as they deal with nontechnical topics (like this
one). [...]
Eric Baudais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you have an interest in a flame war please keep it in debian-legal.
We have our share; we don't need any more. ;) Especially on this
particular subject.
> "If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it
> is not allowed to be
I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
software ...
Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
the software to drive a publicly accessible web server. This condition
would still be DFSG-free, I think, but you can't enforce it with a
pure copy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3 Dec 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
> change.
Well, if we're going to be as strongly judgmental as that, I'ld much rather
it were expressed the right way round -- software
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:11:25AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> > Anyone willing to clear things up?
>
> Sure. "EULA" is marketdrone speak for "a license permitting actions
> involving a copyrighted work". It's the content of those licenses th
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:11:25AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> Anyone willing to clear things up?
Sure. "EULA" is marketdrone speak for "a license permitting actions
involving a copyrighted work". It's the content of those licenses that
matters. Any association you may have between the te
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:25:58PM -0600, Eric Baudais wrote:
> The GFDL does not limit any changes to the body of the text.
It can prevent you from removing or modifying attached bodies of
text, in some uses. This is non-free. Deal with it.
> The reason for documentation guidelines because the D
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:55:43AM +, Martin Wheeler wrote:
> And to those who would say: "There's no difference between software and
> documentation" I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
> writing; specifically, _why_ writers write.
To those who would say "Creating softwa
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> What can't be avoided is the clause in Section 2
>
> You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
>
> I could easily imagine a situation where a
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-04 11:40]:
> It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
> you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
> program that asks you to agree to some terms before continuing.
>
> The former looks like it
Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Besides that there are countries like Austria where click-through
> licenses are not legally binding.
It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
program that asks yo
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And if they put users through a click-wrap license, but don't require it
> on redistribution, there seems to be no point.
I have trouble figuring out clause 2 in the APSL, specifically point
2.2.c.
> (I've seen some slightly confused Windows installers
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-04 10:46]:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:21:29AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> > I suspect (though I could be wrong) that the the problem is that if it's
> > an "EULA", in that the user must agree to it before using the software
> > in question, we have
36 matches
Mail list logo
