Hi,
On Sonntag 25 Mai 2003 01:19, Richard Stallman 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 modified.
Then, why are
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:29:16AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> where it's reasonably justified; I think (though I wish it weren't true)
> that some things like old RFCs are unlikely to be republished under a Free
> license anytime soon (and some might never be, since the authors are dead;
> Jon Post
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
I looked only at 4 programs and all contains non-original sounds! I am
sure that there are many more... but that not only affect to games.
Something that I've had on my mind for some time is the default
"message received" sound f
Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * the right to publicly display the work (in its physical form)
>(e.g. a painting),
[...]
> * (*NEW*) the right to make the work available to the public (on
>demand, on a computer network)
> The DFSG does not really care about the
Hi
On Freitag 23 Mai 2003 11:21, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
> IMHO, i believe that there are an urgent need for a library of
> free sound, music, samples, etc. to take as a base to ease the
> creation of free software which need sounds.
It is also urgently needed for the creation of free music tha
Richard Stallman wrote:
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; repe
On Mon, 26 May 2003, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> Does mplayer has patent problems that stop it from going into debian?
mplayer may or may not have patent problems, but they are not what is
stopping it from going into Debian.
Please read the threads starting at [1] [2] for more information on
why mp
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 03:19:29PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> Hello,
> Does mplayer has patent problems that stop it from going into debian?
The only discussion of patents I can recall relating to mplayer was in
the context of the d-devel flamewar where upstream tried to argue that
other po
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A number of people have posted long lists of supposed reasons why the
> GFDL is not a free license. I have not seen one that is valid, but I
> cannot comment on each point. It takes longer to refute an attack
> than to make one, and the critics outnu
I'll only address a few points. Sorry about that. I'll let others more
knowledgeable handle the rest.
Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm an upstream developer for swish-e. I'm trying to get some help in
> understanding GPL vs. LGPL, and in plain language.
>
> Swish-e is currently
A number of people have posted long lists of supposed reasons why the
GFDL is not a free license. I have not seen one that is valid, but I
cannot comment on each point. It takes longer to refute an attack
than to make one, and the critics outnumber me. Even supposing I
could afford to spend full
Scripsit Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For instance, the GPL's clause 2c (message at an interactive prompt)
> is uncontroversial,
Not quite. I don't think it would have been accepted today by d-l in a
new license if it had not been (effectively) grandfathered in by being
part of the GPL.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Holroyd wrote:
> 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
Hello,
Does mplayer has patent problems that stop it from going into debian?
--
Dariush Pietrzak,
She swore and she cursed, that she never would deceive me
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9
Nicolas Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
> software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
> original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
> they say: "It's OK to build on top of o
Oops, now posting my reply to the list as I originally intended...
On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 18:04, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 01:49:07PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> > Frankly this claim that it is "always better to keep the manual
> > separate"--as if it is always better to ke
Le dim 25/05/2003 à 01:19, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> That doesn't make the issue go away.
>
> It addresses the issue that was raised here before.
> Someone said that the GDB manual had marked a section invariant
> which was not secondary.
I must have missed that one.
Still, there are invar
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:03:28AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >It is very likely that the same occurs with icons, images and other
> >artwork.
>
> A lot of the icons in, e.g., GNOME are Tigert's original works.
Yes, they are. But it is easy to find other cases; this is from SciTE
source f
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:52:08AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] *this* is something that belongs in non-free as
> > a useful service.
>
> People could provide an RFC apt source as a useful service.
People could also provide everything else Debian does. Th
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:19:33PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>An invariant section is invariant,
> and it is not free (even according to your own definition),
>
> With all due respect, this is not for you to say. You are entitled to
> your opinion
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:55:22PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Well. There are several categories of "GNU People". If you mean
> contributors to FSF-copyrighted projects, then these are the views I've
> seen:
>
> 1. The FDL is repugnantly non-free. We tried to convince RMS, who runs
> t
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 03:51 PM, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis then said:
At some point, we've got to draw a line where it's de-clawed. After
all, I think we all agree that if a shell script calls GNU grep[0], it
isn't required to be under the GPL.
This does not affect l
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:54:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
> >>Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
> >> of our Social Contract?
> > No. Wait until the voting GR is over. T
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 01:49:07PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> Frankly this claim that it is "always better to keep the manual
> separate"--as if it is always better to keep data separate from code--is a
> shocking and nonsensical claim from someone with such a distinguished Lisp
> background as yo
On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 04:38 PM, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Actually, I'm a little unclear on the latter point.
Yes, it is at least DFSG 3 that I and many others believe invariant
sections violate.
To what extent
are non-functional restrictions OK for Debian? For instance, the
GPL's cl
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:35:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:21:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > >
> >
> > The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a
> > slew of words! The brande
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 06:54 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
Is proposing a GR your only version of "reconsider"?
In general, no. In this specific case, since it requires a
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:35 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:21:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a
slew of words! The branden misses!
Ridicule does nothing to help your argument.
Of all the pe
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
That make me suspect that the sounds are under a different license or,
at least, requires a different copyright citation or author acknowlegde
than the game itself when used individually.
Probably.
- xboing:
Years ago i recogni
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 10:26 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
I used to have an additional clause in my freeware licenses - "A copy
of all
modifications must be sent back to the author."
Please be aware that clause fails the DFSG. Its OK to request that, of
course.
30 matches
Mail list logo
