Package: automake1.6
Version: 1.6.3-5
Severity: serious
I noticed this from a discussion in #148412 about gimp's licensing)
mizar:[~] head -16 /usr/share/automake-1.6/install-sh
#!/bin/sh
#
# install - install a program, script, or datafile
# This comes from X11R5 (mit/util/scripts/install.sh).
On Fri, 2 May 2003, Yong Li wrote:
> program SCIM is released under LGPL. However the server alone doesn't do
> anything interesting. The real input methods are developed as plugins for
> the server. Upon running the chosen plugin(s) will be loaded into the
[...]
> nutshell it's very similar to
I came across the following while reading the wxWindows documentation (from the
wxwin2.4-doc package):
We also acknowledge the author of XFIG, the excellent Unix drawing tool, from
the source of which we have borrowed some spline drawing code. His copyright is
included below.
XFig2.1 is copyright
On 2 May 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Yong Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Upon running the chosen plugin(s) will be loaded into the
> > server's space through dlopen. Then the server will get pointers of
> > functions from the plugin and call them as certain events occur.
>
> > One of t
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:06:17PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 02:43, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > > What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format,
> > > > anyway? > [...] Forcing
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> If author's rights would be introduced in the USA, this might be the
> case.
Author's rights, or at least the "moral rights" idea therein, are
already in US law. 17 US Code article 106A says, for example, that
the author "shall have the right to prevent the use of his or
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 02:43, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway?
> > > > [...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML
> > I'd assume: "A 'Transparent' copy of the Docu
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030502 20:30]:
> Scripsit Yong Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Upon running the chosen plugin(s) will be loaded into the
> > server's space through dlopen. Then the server will get pointers of
> > functions from the plugin and call them as certain events occur.
Scripsit Yong Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Upon running the chosen plugin(s) will be loaded into the
> server's space through dlopen. Then the server will get pointers of
> functions from the plugin and call them as certain events occur.
> One of the plugins, arguably the only one that most people wi
Scripsit Greg Pomerantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, but a free software developer cannot walk into court and argue
> that they did not intend to grant the right to redistribute
Exactly my point.
> At the very least, the GPL and most other free software licenses are
> be problematic in moral right
Hello everyone,
On debian-chinese list someone has expressed an intension to package a
Chinese input server SCIM and its plugins for Debian. The input server
program SCIM is released under LGPL. However the server alone doesn't do
anything interesting. The real input methods are developed as plug
Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 05:48:23PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > (Opposite in some other parts of the world where one can become
> > rich simply by being too stupid to imagine that coffee might be hot).
> 1. The coffee in question was *much* h
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 05:48:23PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Stupidity does not create rights. (Opposite in some other parts of the
> world where one can become rich simply by being too stupid to imagine
> that coffee might be hot).
Can we put this legend to rest? I realize this is off-topi
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Stupidity does not create rights. (Opposite in some other parts of the
> world where one can become rich simply by being too stupid to imagine
> that coffee might be hot).
Punitive damages are a stupid concept (does any country other than the
USA have them?)
> > The main problem with moral rights seems to be inalienability. As far as
> > I understand it, artists can decide at the time of the use of the work
> > whether they believe it is prejudicial to their "honor and reputation."
>
> That's a misunderstanding. It is not the artist who decides this.
> * Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030501 21:57]:
> > Under droit d'auteur, you're not allowed to grant unqualified permission
> > to the reciever of a work to make modifications or to distribute the work.
> > You cannot fulfil the GPL requirements, so you cannot distribute the work.
On Fri, 2
> I don't think so. On the contrary, BECAUSE of the fact that he
> voluntarily released his icons under GPL, it is an integral part of
> the artistic character of the work that it can be used in any context
> and with any modifications anyone pleases. Therefore, no actual use or
> modification can
Scripsit Greg Pomerantz
> The main problem with moral rights seems to be inalienability. As far as
> I understand it, artists can decide at the time of the use of the work
> whether they believe it is prejudicial to their "honor and reputation."
That's a misunderstanding. It is not the artist who
Scripsit "Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them
> specifies a brief back cover text:
> Is that a problem?
My impression of the consensus that is shaping up is that we're likely
to consider *any* cover text as a problem. Th
Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ok, how about Tuomas Kuosmanen, the creator of a whole lot of fine icons
> in various free software packages? Would his qualify as an "artistic
> reputation"?
Perhaps.
> Would he be able, regardless of the fact that his icons are released
> under GPL, to
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:11:41AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Under droit d'auteur, you're not allowed to grant unqualified permission
> to the reciever of a work to make modifications or to distribute the work.
> You cannot fulfil the GPL requirements, so you cannot distribute the work.
You ap
* Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030501 21:57]:
> On Thu, 1 May 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > I cannot see the problem here. Even if the quoted "sub 2" can be
> > applied, it may only disallow you making something available to
> > the public (i.e. some forms of distributing it).
>
> It says "
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway? >
> > [...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML
> I'd assume: "A 'Transparent' copy of the Document [is] suitable for
> revising the document straightfor
(I originally posted this to debian-user, as "GFDL Freeness Question")
I have some articles on the general topic of software quality at:
http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/articles/
They are all under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.1.
I would like these articles to be included in Li
24 matches
Mail list logo
