On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:49:59PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> > As I understand it, the "must" requirement of your license is entirely
> > GPL-compatible, as the GPL also stipulates that one may not
> > misrepresent
> > the origin of the work. The problem arises if we understand your
> > license
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is*
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
but given
their authors licensed them in ways that forbid linking with
non-GPL-compatible software, such as OpenSSL, that sounds reasonable
Well, at least you're consistent ;-)
Wait. Isn't dpkg under the GPL? Now everything o
On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:19:50 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
> not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot
> be modi
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what if I encounter an Invariant Section saying that Social
> Security is wrong and that old or diseased people should be left alone
> and not helped by a public service? If I cannot remove this political
> statement, I cannot really
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jaime E . Villate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > > I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views a
On Sun, 2003-05-25 at 18:03, Richard Stallman wrote:
> There are free software licenses that have restrictions that I find
> annoying and inconvenient. One is the old BSD license. I worked for
> several years to convince Berkeley to remove the advertising clause,
> which I called "obnoxious." I
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I am insufficiently aware of the philosophical basis for the existence
> of fair use in US copyright law to know where else might be affected -
> does the rest of Europe have general fair use provisions?
"Fair use" appears to be a US invention. European copyright laws
of c
But what if I encounter an Invariant Section saying that Social
Security is wrong and that old or diseased people should be left alone
and not helped by a public service? If I cannot remove this political
statement, I cannot really regard the manual as free. And I would not
want
Many examples have been given for why this is *false*, and they're
pretty much all tied to the *non-removability* rather than the
non-modifiability. Should we repeat them again?
I've looked at these reasons, and they did not convince me the first
time; repeating them won't convince
Richard Stallman wrote:
>But that the issue is a moot point, because a reference card would use
>so little of the text of the manual that it would be fair use. In
>fact, the very idea that a reference card is derived from the manual
>in copyright terms seems like an unrealistic idea.
UK copyrigh
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:19:33PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It addresses the issue that was raised here before.
> Someone said that the GDB manual had marked a section invariant
> which was not secondary.
As indeed it had. "A Sample GDB Session" (among others) was marked
Invariant. The i
12 matches
Mail list logo
