On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 06:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
> > >
> > > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 21:07 US/Eastern, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
a) cause SpamAssassin fail to meet the DFSG (or OSD)
Yep, certainly does. And, in principle Habeas must not be free to stand
a chance of working.
[ For example, they'd fall afoul of at least the discrimination on
fields
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to make the effort some day, but first I have to finish GPL
> version 3, which faces other difficult questions.
I have recently come to the conclusion that making a unified license
is the only reasonable course left. There was much talk on th
Are there any legal problems with using the Habeas Warrant Mark in open
source spam filters (specifically, SpamAssassin). I want to be certain
that it does not:
a) cause SpamAssassin fail to meet the DFSG (or OSD)
b) cause SpamAssassin other legal problems
If your objection is that Habeas suck
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:02:56 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my question>
>
> I intend to make the effort some day, but first I have to finish GPL
> version 3, which faces other difficult questions.
There have been some statements made by people who weren't part of the
FSF as
Debian, like everyone, would love a single unified license. But
that's not the problem per-se. The problem is that we want all the
licenses to be free by a single definition. That some of the licenses
will be incompatible with each other is a problem, but not one that
impacts freedom.
The prob
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gregory K.Johnson wrote:
> ... But B needn't disclose this offer; B could intentionally make
> itself ineligible to transfer A's offer by conducting its own
> distribution commercially; ...
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but under the terms of the GPL, B
is no
A number of people have raised issues about the GFDL that pertain to
converting documentation into software and vice versa. They call for
software and documentation to be a single pool of material with
compatible licenses.
That goal goes way beyond what I aimed for when writing our licenses.
I wr
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
"Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final
product is a precondition for this".
[...]
Humans
(non-common: the order of the 4 bases on the DNA string) :-)
Hmmm... sounds like you're required to dis
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 22:01 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
difficult to be r
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 20:10 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I contemplated a few ways to rephrase it, but whenever I tried, I
found myself arriving back at the first sentence again[1]. As such, I
think it'd be best to remove the second one outright; the freedom is
already adequetely
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
>
> 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
>including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
>own changes to Works written by others.
>
> I need to
Nicolas Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:00:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
>> I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
>> last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form. Anyone
>> downstream from that person wou
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing I don't think that's entirely clear is about the labelling of
> your changes. The GPL specifies that you must put a notice in a given
> file detailing the date and nature of the changes.
>
> Such may or may not be considered part of the copyri
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote:
> What do you think about debian packages like daemontools-installer
> which could use such a program to create the man pages and put them
> into the resulting debian packages? As I understand this this is
> quite ok because the user starts "build-daemontool
Hallo,
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:16:49PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Assuming the use fell under fair use, it would be legal. It's
> definetly not legal for debian to distribute the man pages, but I
> don't think it would be a big deal for users to use such a program.
What do you think about d
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
> >
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's po
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> To remove confusion, could you please specify which license these
>> manuals or texts are under and link directly to them on DJB's
>> website?
>
> There is no license.
Hrm. Well, that usua
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:29:03PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> I'd like to mention here that FSF talks about free software and free
> documentation and not about free works.
Well, they're the Free *Software* Foundation.
Presumably, they care first and foremost about software.
> It is question
Hallo,
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote:
> > D. J. Bernstein maintains a website with documentation texts but
> > because all these texts are not licensed under a DFSG-free license it
> > is not possible to convert these pages
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:32:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
> >own changes to Work
Greg Pomerantz said:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
>> last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form.
>> Anyone downstream from that person would have to keep the "source" in
>> that form and t
I was mildly confused with Branden's response to my message, and I've
been asked by two other people privately what the conclusion of the
"debate" was, so I'll just summarise quickly here the discussion Branden
and myself had on IRC. I checked with Branden, and he's perfectly happy
with the summary
Nicolas Kratz said:
> Hmmm... Wouldn't distributing the modified Free Work, even if it's only
> distributed to "B", require "A" to make available the modified Free
> Work to third parties? Then one could start from there, and utterly
> disregard "B"s obfuscated version.
>
> I'm pretty sure that is
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Having to include a changelog entry describing my modifications and
> (at minimum) that the original author didn't make the change is quite
> a bit different from simply giving some code to a friend w/o telling
> whether I even modified the code. One i
iain d broadfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> To give a concrete example, accurate attribution of changes (e.g., a
>> changelog) is a good thing because is strengthens the social
>> structures that keep Free Software working, yet it's clearly a limit
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> 1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
>> 2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the
> ^to
>>work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
>>"source code"), if
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
> >
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and
> >
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
>
> 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
>including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and
>one's own changes to Works written by others.
I think (th
* Anton Zinoviev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 12.VI.2003 at 16:21 Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > The Free Software Foundation promulgates, and the Debian Project
> > generally accepts, four essential freedoms as defining "Free
> > Software".
> >
> > The following is an enumeration of freedoms
> 1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
> 2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the
^to
>work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
>"source code"), if applicable, is a precondition for this.
> 3) The freedom
On 12.VI.2003 at 16:21 Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> The Free Software Foundation promulgates, and the Debian Project
> generally accepts, four essential freedoms as defining "Free
> Software".
>
> The following is an enumeration of freedoms intended to apply to
> non-public-domain works in general.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
>including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
>own changes to Works written by others.
>
> ... The point is that my usage of your Free Sof
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:00:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:10:23AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
> > >one's changes
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final
> product is a precondition for this".
>
> This would require to publish the code, the Makefiles, any unpublic
> compiler patches, maybe some UML files that are needed, while elemtents
> l
Hi,
Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 05.41 schrieb Andrew Suffield:
> > Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
> > possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
> > compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
> > difficult to be rea
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
> last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form. Anyone
> downstream from that person would have to keep the "source" in that form
> and the "binary" together.
I t
37 matches
Mail list logo
