> Whether to change the GFDL is not a Debian decision, so I've decided
> not to discuss that here.
Is there a public forum where you are willing to discuss that?
Not now, and not in the way that some people want to discuss it
(they throw stones at me while I stand there and get hit).
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 22:56, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
> Somewhere on this planet, bandwith must be really cheap...
21715 Filigree Court, VA is one such place. Now if only power and space
there were really cheap :-(
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> > You. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You
> > agree that any External Deployment by You shall be deemed a
> > distribution and shall be licensed to all under the terms of this
> > License,
> >
> > Whee! I haven't changed my mind since the Affero discussion. I
> > personally think it's a non-free use restriction to declare that "deliver
> > content to anyone other than You" is equivalent to distribution of the
> > software.
>
> I agree strongly; in a networked world all software pot
Hi Henning,
On Dienstag 27 Mai 2003 00:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 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
Hi Edmund,
On Dienstag 13 Mai 2003 11:54, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So the problem here is that the source code of sample data
> > is more sample data. These samples might again require their
> > sources, and so the resulting tree could be enor
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 19:34, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > The Open Software License
> > v. 1.0
>
> > 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term "Source Code" means the
> > preferred form of the Original Work for makin
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> The Open Software License
> v. 1.0
> 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term "Source Code" means the
> preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
> all available documentation
On Monday 02 June 2003 13:16, Joey Hess wrote:
> This is a new one to me. It's the license of elfutils, which is included
> in rpm 4.2.
>
> The Open Software License
> v. 1.0
>
sounds like a fairly straightforward BSD like license with a little m
This is a new one to me. It's the license of elfutils, which is included
in rpm 4.2.
The Open Software License
v. 1.0
This Open Software License (the "License") applies to any original
work of authorship (the "Original Work") whose owner (th
> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 09:25:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I came on a program that is distributed under the GPL with the addition
> > of the following exception :
> >
> > Derivative works must not remove the original author's copyright
> > notices, name or comments from source code an
> > My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
> > order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
> > community against poachers and legal attacks.
>
> It seems perfectly plausible to me that the reason you cite was never
> the sole motivation for this
> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
> >> own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
> >> web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't get to
> >> require a copyright no
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 09:25:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Hello, ...
>
> I came on a program that is distributed under the GPL with the addition
> of the following exception :
>
> Derivative works must not remove the original author's copyright
> notices, name or comments from source cod
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
> The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
> solution by having a DFSG for documentation ? The scope of
> documentation and software seems to not be the same.
Doesn't the GNU FDL invite c
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:37:50AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
> order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
> community against poachers and legal attacks.
It seems perfectly plausible to me that the
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 11:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
> order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
> community against poachers and legal attacks. It would be a drastic
> misunderstanding to think they do
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
>> own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
>> web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't g
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks. It would be a drastic
misunderstanding to think they do it in order to give themselves an
ability to share that they'
On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 14:58, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> And even the FSF
> will be bitten by it again, should someone add some text to the GDB
> manual which the FSF incorporates back into its master copy, and then
> the FSF decides to modify the that document's invariant parts.
No, the FSF will n
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 22:04, James Miller wrote:
> To date, I'm not aware of any FOSS related cases, but
> perhaps SCO, Novell and IBM will provide something for us
> in this area?
Personally, I doubt much of interest will come out of SCO vs. IBM.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 12:13:06AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
> > own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
> > web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't get to
> > require a co
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 08:59:53AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > "I think a web-based message board clearly reads commands
> > > interactively. So, if there is such a notice, you can't remove it. But
> > > you could alter its form, so long as it is still appropria
Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
> solution by having a DFSG for documentation ?
You would also need to amend the Social Contract to change "1. Debian
will remain 100% Free Software" which would no longer
Have you simply ignored the explanations...
An insulting question like that doesn't deserve a response,
but I will answer anyway.
I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
allowed), many of these cases h
Let me point out that just as Debian doesn't get to demand that the
GFDL be changed, so also the FSF does not have a role in determining
the interpretation of Debian's standards.
We all recognize this; I acknowledged it explicitly here a few days
ago.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
> own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
> web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't get to
> require a copyright notice on *every*
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > "I think a web-based message board clearly reads commands
> > interactively. So, if there is such a notice, you can't remove it. But
> > you could alter its form, so long as it is still appropriate."
>
> > I guess this case is difficult, since you could interpret ea
28 matches
Mail list logo
