On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:37, Joe Moore wrote:
> How is that harder with the FDL "History" section than with the "clearly
> marked" BSD code, or the GPL-required changelog?
The document trail in "History" may not exist anymore (or may be
inadaquate); you can't just say "Oh, this Invariant Section d
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 06:24:24PM +0100, Steve King wrote:
> There is a "semi-official" patch set for the IJG jpeg code:
> ftp://ftp.imagemagick.org/pub/ImageMagick/delegates/ljpeg-6b.tar.gz
> which adds support for lossless jpeg files.
>
> There is no Copyright, README, or similar file with a li
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except
>to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved?
One good definition of software is "the part of a computer that's not
hardware". Another is "Information in a format d
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Joe Wreschnig said:
>>> If someone adds proprietary code to BSD-licensed code, however, you
>>> can later extract the free code (assuming you have access to the code
>>> of the now-proprietary program), and use it in something else
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:49:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:21:59AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > * Though it's generally a good thing that the GPL requires me to
> > provide source, this requirement gives less benefit in the case of
> > text and can have
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:49:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This is why, when using the GPL for things which are not clearly
> program source code, you must always specify what the preferred form
> for modification is (append it to the license declaration, which
> should be just below the co
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:21:59AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> * Though it's generally a good thing that the GPL requires me to
> provide source, this requirement gives less benefit in the case of
> text and can have some unpleasant consequences. For example, if
> someone makes a derived w
Scripsit Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is circular. You are only routing around DFSG's inconvenient
> restrictions if those restrictions apply (by virtue of being software).
> It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except
> to force DSFG restrictions whe
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:10:37AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
If one does not see the difference between program and documentation, it
is very hard to explain why they do not need the same kind of freedoms.
If one cannot coherently and usefully *describe* the
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:21:59AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> * The compulsory change log is similarly inconvenient, though everyone
> seems to ignore that part of the GPL anyway.
Not everyone.
apt-get source xfree86
vi xfree86-*/debian/local/xserver-wrapper.c
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:22:27AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > Personally, I don't like it. Use of DFSG4 (beyond "The license
> > may require... a different name") isn't really encouraged, and if
> > one can't distributed modified binaries because there are no
> > binaries, the software fe
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:08:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anyway, even if this was the 'solution', we still *must* kick the GCC
> and GNU Emacs manuals out of main.
>
> I don't understand why that hasn't been done yet.
Cowardice, and the (apparently) delusional belief that further
nego
Dear Legal Gurus,
There is a "semi-official" patch set for the IJG jpeg code:
ftp://ftp.imagemagick.org/pub/ImageMagick/delegates/ljpeg-6b.tar.gz
which adds support for lossless jpeg files.
The archive contains three files:
ljpeg-6b.patch and two copies of a test image, in both lossless
jpeg and
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:10:37AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> If one does not see the difference between program and documentation, it
> is very hard to explain why they do not need the same kind of freedoms.
If one cannot coherently and usefully *describe* the difference between
progra
Hi again,
It's me, Katrina from Ecstasea Yacht Charter! I just wanted to say thanks for
pre-registering with us and that we are now 100% up and running! I can't wait
to see you on deck and show you my new bikini!
In case you don't remember my phone numbers for reservations, you can now
regist
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joe Wreschnig said:
>> If someone adds proprietary code to BSD-licensed code, however, you can
>> later extract the free code (assuming you have access to the code of
>> the now-proprietary program), and use it in something else. Once
>> proprietary (invar
Joe Wreschnig said:
> If someone adds proprietary code to BSD-licensed code, however, you can
> later extract the free code (assuming you have access to the code of
> the now-proprietary program), and use it in something else. Once
> proprietary (invariant) sections are added to something under the
O Luns, 4 de Agosto de 2003 ás 00:21:59 +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS escribía:
> (L) Public Property: You may do anything you want with this work
> provided that you inform all recipients that all derived works must
> likewise be Public Property.
... with no additional restrictions.
--
Tar
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>
> (L) Public Property: You may do anything you want with this work
> provided that you inform all recipients that all derived works must
> likewise be Public Property.
>
I'm not really big into -legal, but I wonder if there might be some
confusion
19 matches
Mail list logo
