Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Don Armstrong writes:
> > > This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
> > > two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
> > > introducing this onerous term into the
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
> > two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
> > introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me.
>
> Because they don
Don Armstrong writes:
> This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the
> two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep
> introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me.
Because they don't think it's fair for you to make changes that you've
s
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> > I asked if my understanding of the exchange was correct--GNOME
> > distributes Bitstream's non-free Vera fonts and in exchange Bitstream
> > eventually supplies DFSG-free software.
>
> You're asking the wrong people
J.B. Nicholson-Owens writes:
> Joe Drew wrote:
> > Probably because Bitstream refuse to operate under any model but this
> > one (i.e., to not let substandard fonts get used as the official ones),
> > and they're more interested in getting things done than in blue-sky
> > idealism?
>
> So y
J.B. Nicholson-Owens writes:
> Joe Drew wrote:
> > Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which
> > Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's involvement is the
> > reason these fonts are free, not the other way around.
>
> So, if I understand you correctly
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:07:20PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:09:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > We do have some software t
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 2(c) says that the notice must be displayed "when started running for
> > such interactive use in the most ordinary way". That would be on the
> > front page of the website (http://www.example.org/)
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I think that PHPNuke actually is applying (2)(c) correctly. The output
> > of PHPNuke is derived from the HTML and Javascript input. In the case
> > of Javascript in separate files, it's not eve
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:56, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Turner
>
> (Is it on purpose that you didn't cc to the list?)
No, it was sheer idiocy. Fixed.
> > > 2(c) says that the notice must be displayed "when started running for
> > > such interactive use in the most ordinary way". Th
On Sat, 01 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> One way in which it differs from the Zope web bug, is that the GPL
> clause only applies when you want to distribute your changes. Which
> would mean Debian's required to include the code in its packages, but
> users are free to remove it themselves, if t
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think that PHPNuke actually is applying (2)(c) correctly. The output
> of PHPNuke is derived from the HTML and Javascript input. In the case
> of Javascript in separate files, it's not even derived -- it's the
> original. It's clear that PHPNuke "re
[replying to two messages at once]
On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 12:20, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll note that the GNU GPL's 2c), for instance, does not mandate that
> the announcement of the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer be
> placed into files output or processed by the software, which is wh
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:09:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these
> > > exceptions grant addit
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:07:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I didn't try to reach a conclusion about DFSG-freeness with the above
> > statement for the precise reason that I couldn't find a consensus on the
> > issue with my
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:20:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug ("all
> pages rendered with Zope have to have our little image on it"), against
> which Bruce Perens successfully campaigned some years ago.
One way in which it differs
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:19:34AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:44:56AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > Could the maintainer of PHP-Nuke please have a little chat with
> > the author?
>
> I think that the author is unlikely to relent on this, given
> http://www.phpnuke.o
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:07:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > However, I would like to play devil's advocate for a second:
> >
> > A person could consider a Web application to be a program that
> > "reads commands interactively" in the same se
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:09:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:38:52PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug ("all
> > > pages rendered with Zope have to ha
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:38:52PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug ("all
> > pages rendered with Zope have to have our little image on it"), against
> > which Bruce Perens successfully
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these
> > exceptions grant additional rights, instead of imposing additional
> > restrictions.
>
> Good point. I wonder, thou
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:02:32PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these
> > exceptions grant additional rights, instead of imposing additional
> > restrictions.
>
> Good p
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:07:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I didn't try to reach a conclusion about DFSG-freeness with the above
> statement for the precise reason that I couldn't find a consensus on the
> issue with my quick list searching. I'm just saying "I don't like the BSD
> advertising
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:09:46PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug
>
> Are you sure that there are any countries which do not forbid removing
> copyright notices?
I've always regarded
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:22:44PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> We do have some software that is GNU GPL with exceptions, but these
> exceptions grant additional rights, instead of imposing additional
> restrictions.
Good point. I wonder, though, if the difference is important?
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> I'm not sure this really makes sense. We have seen other software
> licensed with "GPL with exceptions" before -- such as software that
> uses OpenSSL. I think this is a case of the copyright holder using
> "GPL with exceptions".
We do have some softwar
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:38:52PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug ("all
> > pages rendered with Zope have to have our little image on it"), against
> > which Bruce Perens successfully
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:20:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think this is not good for the same reason as the BSD advertising clause.
>
> Well, it's *worse* than the BSD advertising clause, and since the DFSG
> implicitly permits the BSD advertising clause, this analogy isn't
> persuas
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:03:03PM +, James Troup wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> >> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> >
> > This is not shown in /usr/share/
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug ("all
> pages rendered with Zope have to have our little image on it"), against
> which Bruce Perens successfully campaigned some years ago.
Perhaps, but the Zope license required it explic
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What this restriction is much *more* like is the Zope web bug
Are you sure that there are any countries which do not forbid removing
copyright notices?
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
>> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
>
> This is not shown in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright! Where does this come
> from?
Err, not read the G
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:12:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright:
>
> Note from upstream author:
>
>
> ##
> #I M P O R T A N TN O T E
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:44:56AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> HTML and JavaScript within. Therefore, I suspect most people
> using PHP-Nuke are in violation of Section 0 of its license.
>
> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:12:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright:
>
> Note from upstream author:
>
> ##
> #I M P O R T A N TN O T E
Hello,
This is in /usr/share/doc/phpnuke/copyright:
Note from upstream author:
##
#I M P O R T A N TN O T E#
Hi!
I wrote about this problem in [EMAIL PROTECTED] The answer (by
Markus Kuhn) was:
> This was discussed before. None of the commercial font suppliers
> considers pixel fonts to be of any commercial interest whatsoever today,
> therefore the problem you outline remains a purely theoretical conc
37 matches
Mail list logo
