Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:36:11PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > If a web-based CMS constitutes "interactive use" in any fashion, I would > > argue that this could only be so inasmuch as we consider clicking on links > > within the website to be part of a single interactive session, because > > ot

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:06:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > Are you really asserting that a single program can be both interactive and > engaging in an act of redistributing its source code at the same time? > > That sounds ludicrous and farfetched to me, given that both statements, by > thems

Re: OSD && DFSG convergence

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > >Note: I know of no legal jurisdictions that assign legal rights >to executing computer processes. > > virii exempt :) .-=| Tim Spriggs |=-. (||) Systems Admin.

Re: OSD && DFSG convergence

On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote: > Note: I know of no legal jurisdictions that assign legal rights to > executing computer processes. Aparently, this will happen in 2053: "Berne," the Finn said, ignoring him. "Berne. It's got limited Swiss citizenship under their equivalent of the A

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:08:57PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > A program in the middle of a pipeline never directly accepts input from > > the user, nor does it output direcly to the user. > > Therefore it is not interactive. > > Bingo. > > PHPNuks is just that program. Its pipeline looks

Re: OSD && DFSG convergence

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > I agree that that's a reasonable and canonical interpretation of '4'. > > My concern is with alternative interpretations of it, given that some > > people here are advocating quite liberal stretching of the term > > "interactive" to

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:06:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > A program in the middle of a pipeline never directly accepts input from > the user, nor does it output direcly to the user. Therefore it is not interactive. Bingo. PHPNuks is just that program. Its pipeline looks like: web brows

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:58:32PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > Additionally. PHPNuke *isn't* merely an underlying tool -- its > copyrighted layout, graphics, HTML, and Javascript are included in its > output. By simply switching the theme, you could arrive at a situation where there is little o

Re: PHPNuke license

Just to be clear: I'm not sure exactly how or where PHPNuke outputs the given text. If it's part of output templates, then it doesn't seem to be a problem. My problem is if PHPNuke is claiming that I have to maintain the GPL blurb even if I redesign its output (eg. rewrite templates); that PHPNuk

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:28:18PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > John Goerzen writes: > > Can you positively assert that this is the case in every country, not just > > the US or Britain? > > You are asking a question whose answer is of no importance. > > Read section 12.8 of the RPSL. Which

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 18:43, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:42:01PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > If I go further, and patent my modifications, to which in the United > > > States the only barrier appears to be the mo

Re: OSD && DFSG convergence

*not speaking for FSF* On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 18:54, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I agree that that's a reasonable and canonical interpretation of '4'. > My concern is with alternative interpretations of it, given that some > people here are advocating quite liberal stretching of the term > "interact

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 18:44, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:53:22PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > Even if there is a problem, it's not even on the order of the BSD > > advertising clause -- it doesn't make the software non-free. > > Eh? Since when (according to the FSF) doe

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:14:15PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > Maybe for convenience, I'll use [EMAIL PROTECTED] when I've got the FSF hat > > on, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] otherwise. > > That's a fairly subtle distinction; I recommend changing

Re: OSD && DFSG convergence

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:50:38PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > > According to (2)(c) of version 2 of the GNU GPL, the only "code which > > announces" anything that you're not allowed to remove is the > > copyright notice and the warranty disclaimer.

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:06:58PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > How does this sound for an interpretation of interactive in shell > scripts: "A program is running interactively if stdin and stdout are > ttys." This should prevent most of the spam effect, right? That is 1) far too technical and sp

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:42:01PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote: > > If I go further, and patent my modifications, to which in the United > > States the only barrier appears to be the money to pay a patent lawyer > > to file a claim with the USPTO

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:53:22PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > Even if there is a problem, it's not even on the order of the BSD > advertising clause -- it doesn't make the software non-free. Eh? Since when (according to the FSF) does the BSD advertising clause make software non-free? -- G. Br

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 01:23:24PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > I think it is fair to say that this is unsettled law. That probably > means that Debian should consider contracts as copyrightable. ...while making it clear that we don't endorse that interpretation. -- G. Branden Robinson

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:14:15PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > Maybe for convenience, I'll use [EMAIL PROTECTED] when I've got the FSF hat > on, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] otherwise. That's a fairly subtle distinction; I recommend changing your .signature as well. For example, here's a snippet of my

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:02:28PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:38:48PM -0500, David Turner wrote: [I wrote] > > > Well, you should at least try to set them straight now, although I [...] > > Yeah, but I'm not even sure what straight would be here, since there > > seems

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:30, Glenn Maynard wrote: > A string of piped commands might output five such notices; a foreach > loop might output hundreds. [1] ... > [1] Continuing the idea that using these programs in a complicated > but user-typed shell string is still "interactive"; it's probably e

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:30, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > Even if there is a problem, it's not even on the order of the BSD > > advertising clause -- it doesn't make the software non-free. And if > > there is a problem, it's a genuine problem which ought to be fixed. > > A string of piped commands mi

Re: Licensing clarification on GnuMICR font (GPL)

On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:20, Branden Robinson wrote: > In my opinion, there is a little bit of vagueness in the following: > >This font may only be distributed with the license and the source code >to the font intact. It's not exactly clear to me how the GNU GPL applies > to >fonts

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 15:39, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Furthermore, a broad interpretation of 2c would be inconsistent with the > > way most FSF programs actually work. The stuff in GNU coreutils doesn't > > generally spew a co

Re: Licensing clarification on GnuMICR font (GPL)

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:13:41PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all - stumbled across a discussion of the licensing of my "GnuMICR" font on > this list, last September. (btw... when discussing licensing inconsistencies > in someone's software, cc'ing them would be helpful!) Well, I think

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 18:34, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:16, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > > FooWebProg is Copyright

Re: OSD && DFSG convergence

On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > According to (2)(c) of version 2 of the GNU GPL, the only "code which > announces" anything that you're not allowed to remove is the > copyright notice and the warranty disclaimer. There are four things that you are not allowed to remove: 1. copyrigh

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:28:41PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > They are an object form. The page transmitted by PHP-nuke is not the > preferred form for modification (which has the PHP code embedded > within it), and so not source. It is produced by mechanical > transformation fromt he sour

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:53:22PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > Actually, I think "Copyright 2003, FSF and others (see file /foo/bar for > details) [no warranty]" would be an appropriate copyright notice. So, > there's a minor problem, but not an unbounded problem. > > I'm just not sure I see a

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:28:18PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > John Goerzen writes: > > Can you positively assert that this is the case in every country, not just > > the US or Britain? > > You are asking a question whose answer is of no importance. > > Read section 12.8 of the RPSL. Most g

Re: PHPNuke license

David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 18:34, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:16, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > FooWebProg is Copyright 2003, Freddy Bloggs and > > > others. There's no warranty. You can

Re: OSD && DFSG convergence

Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively > when run, you must cause it, when started running for such > interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an > announcement including an appropriate c

Re: PHPNuke license

Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:10:45PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > > Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:24:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > > A

Re: OSD && DFSG convergence

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 08:47:29PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > You are not allowed to remove the copyright statement from a source > file. To do so would be copyright infringment in most jurisdictions, and it is not the purpose of the DFSG to encourage copyright infringement. > You are not all

Re: [Discussioni] OSD && DFSG convergence

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:46:10AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > (Why do people seem to believe that repeating the same thing several times > makes it more true, and ignoring others' arguments makes them less true?) Because most people are religious. -- G. Branden Robinson| W

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 18:49, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > tb> It's not about what's "fair"; they make a license, they get to > tb> have whatever license they want, but it's not a free software > tb> license. > > Last time I hea

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:38:48PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > > > Hm, you probably ought to be aware that the PHPNuke people seem to > > > > have interpreted it as an authoritative statement from the FSF: > > > > > > > > > > I wi

Re: PHPNuke license

On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote: > ... if > I change GNU coreutils to have every program "normally" output a > copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty, no one who receives my > my modified version (whether directly from me or not, and whether it > includes further modificat

Re: PHPNuke license

On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 16:48, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:06:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > > Hm, you probably ought to be aware that the PHPNuke people seem to > > > have interpreted it as an authoritative statement from the FSF: > > >

Re: PHPNuke license

On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote: > If I go further, and patent my modifications, to which in the United > States the only barrier appears to be the money to pay a patent lawyer > to file a claim with the USPTO, then the FSF has a real problem. No, then you have a section 6 and

Re: PHPNuke license

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 18:34, Henning Makholm wrote: > 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

Re: PHPNuke license

On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, Matt Brubeck wrote: > In the US, "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, adminis- > trative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and > similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of > public policy" (Copyright Office Practices Com

Re: PHPNuke license

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS: > > Maybe I'm remembering something completely wrong, but I thought that > > legal contracts in the US were not copyrightable. > > If that is the case, I congratulate the US legislators. > > However, in the UK, if I remember correctly, the Law Society owns the > copyright for

Re: PHPNuke license

Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > One of the strong hints that the GNU GPL is not meant to be part > of a hybrid license with additional restrictions appears right at the top. > Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, M

Re: The license of the URW fonts

Anton Zinoviev said: > Hi! > > This is the license of the URW fonts: > > % Copyright (URW)++,Copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development % > (URW)++,Copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development > % See the file COPYING (GNU General Public License) for license > conditions. % As a special excep

The license of the URW fonts

Hi! This is the license of the URW fonts: % Copyright (URW)++,Copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development % (URW)++,Copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development % See the file COPYING (GNU General Public License) for license conditions. % As a special exception, permission is granted to incl

Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free

> "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: tb> It's not about what's "fair"; they make a license, they get to tb> have whatever license they want, but it's not a free software tb> license. Last time I heard, FSF was still arguing with Real over the RPSL compliance to th

Re: PHPNuke license

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Maybe I'm remembering something completely wrong, but I thought that > legal contracts in the US were not copyrightable. If that is the case, I congratulate the US legislators. However, in the UK, if I remember correctly, the Law Society owns the copyright fo

Re: PHPNuke license

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:10:45PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:24:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > Agreed. In particular, in such a hybrid licence,

Re: PHPNuke license

Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:24:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > Agreed. In particular, in such a hybrid licence, the word "this > > > License" in the GPL text would naturally be taken

Re: [Discussioni] OSD && DFSG convergence

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:38:52AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. If > > you refuse, they will sue you for reliance (they created this > > software for this express purpose of putting it into Debian, relying > > on the DFSG to m