On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [database protection]
> > Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> > -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These facts have not prevented the open source movement from quite
> effectively covering up what we stand for, and our movement's very
> existence. They cannot make any specific person forget, but they
> have led most US journalists to deny our exist
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 20:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Now, the World Wide Web exists. And the FSF has its own website.
> Anyone who looks at the attribution of any FSF program or manual
> can probably find the website. People who have never seen an FSF
> program or manual can fin
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 18:55, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html):
> >Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now. We intend to
> >continue to use invariant sections th
Now, the World Wide Web exists. And the FSF has its own website.
Anyone who looks at the attribution of any FSF program or manual
can probably find the website. People who have never seen an FSF
program or manual can find the website, too. The website will
always contain the
>From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html):
>Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now. We intend to
>continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have
>always done.
This seems t
Branden Robinson wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:21:09AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> > Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
>> > the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open
source".
>>
>> "Let those who fight monsters take car
Fedor Zuev wrote:
> Overgeneralization is not always good. Worrying about a
>possible problems in the far future instead of problems existed now
>in not nessesaryly involve promotion of freedom.
I worry about hypothetical issues now to avoid there being a large
quantity of GFDLed material i
>>Lack of forced distribution is not "censorship". Get a clue, or a
>>dictionary.
>
>Heh.
>
>"Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to
>distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from
>the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a
>free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
[database protection]
> Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the
> creator to control the creation of copies of the work.
That's not
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman'
> >game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in
> >source code of all derived versions, and must be invoked (perhaps
> >through a command-line option) by every derived pr
On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 10:44 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
So, there is no censorship in the world as long as no one
threaten to kill you? Well.
That's not what I said, and even if it were, there are other forms of
coercion, intimidation, etc. besides death threats.
[And ther
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Goerzen wrote:
> I didn't post it yet because I'm not yet sure in my own mind what the right
> guidelines are. Despite the assertions of some, I do not think that just
> accepting GFDL 100% is the right thing to do here.
>
> I see the following scenarios:
>
>
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The work being proprietary has nothing to do with the contents of the
work itself, which is just what I stated above. Please don't answer to a
This is irrelevant. I do not really understand, why do you think it is
that important. Do you think that "restricting" is not
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> > > it isn't organized in a clever fashion.
>
> > You do not copyright a database. You claim database rights on
> > such a database if you can prove a su
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:44:25PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> Please note, that you do not need a special license from me
> to include (or even not include) portion of my post in your. But for
> manual you expect explicit permission.
This is false. I can legally quote you anywhere I want to,
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:57:01PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> >Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
> >allowed 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source
> >and object code of all derived versions, and
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several
> > times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> > Service
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 20:32, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as
> > you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the
> > software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > > > We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bit
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 16:21, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> >Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
> >> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
> >> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
> >>
Josselin Mouette wrote:
GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as
you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the
software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the limitation is
on how you have to do it.
Sorry, but GPL have restrictio
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > > We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera.
> >
> > IMO, that isn't Free Software, either.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU F
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:55:05 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> JM>> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
> JM>> users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
> JM>> best interest
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:38:38PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> If it is then I can imagine such scenario:
There are much more interesting scenarios to imagine.
Person A owns a computer.
Person B installs a game on person A's computer, and happily clicks
through the EULA. Person B is not an
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> What are you trying to rebute from my "clause" with it? It is more
>or less my reasoning: you can translate the book having only a
>hardcopy of it. Well, it is even standard practice. If you want to
>actually modify it -- well, you may either OCR it, or
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
> > > first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:21:09AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
> > the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".
>
> "Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 17:21, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
> FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
>
> I think I see two misunderstandings here. Just who has misunderstood,
> I cannot tell.
>
>
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
> the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".
> So I don't think we can conclude that such precautions are no longer
> necessary.
It's true that many have
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 10:21, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
> FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
>
> I think I see two misunderstandings here. Just who has misunderstood,
> I cannot tell.
>
> F
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
>allowed 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source
>and object code of all derived versions, and must be displayed
>(perhaps through a command-line option) by every de
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
>> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
>> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
>> But it is different problem.
>No, it is exactly one of the
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>There a VERY large difference, as black from white, between me deciding
>not to repeat certain portions of Mr. Zuev's post[0] and sending people
>to intimidate or kill him. The former is known, at least in the free
>world, as free speech; the latter
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
>>to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
>>But it is different problem.
>The GFDL may only be intended for documentation and the like, but
>if I want to u
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
JM>> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
JM>> users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
JM>> best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue.
JM>Are you trying to assert point 2 of t
You hold the gun and I'll pull the trigger while wearing a blindfold,
then neither of us will be convicted of murder. Won't work. The law
is not a computer program. There's this thing called "intent." And
"conspiracy", and "guilty as charged", and "punitive fines", and
"jail" ...
If C knows (o
On 2003-08-23 02:33:12 +0100 John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that
is
slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as
well?
I am totally opposed to modifying the DFSG. They are already clearly
applicabl
Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Third: if we were to enumerate each and every right in the license, it
> would be much longer and more complex (and imagine if we started combining
> the rights "you must not limit the recipient's ability to make and
> distribute new copies of excerpted
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 06:21:56PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:06:39 +0200
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is C doing anything illegal in this case?
> >
> > No, C isn't, but A and B may well be doing illegal things, depending
> > on the license.
> >
>
Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
Hello all
I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is
the click trough licen
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:38:38PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
> http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
>
> On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
> product. That the only legal barier to us
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:02:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > I freely admit th
At a cost. While I understand the desire for the invariant sections, it
can be wondered what freedom is most desirable: the freedom to run,
study, redistribute and improve for everyone, or the freedom to run,
study, redistribute and improve for only those that agree with your
ph
> Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
> the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".
"Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become
monsters." - Friedrich Nietzsche
That danger always exists, but it ca
Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
I think I see two misunderstandings here. Just who has misunderstood,
I cannot tell.
First, as far as I have heard, Debian has not yet voted on the
quest
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
> > first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free
> > software can work at all with laws like that.
> >
> > Do
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:06:39 +0200
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is C doing anything illegal in this case?
>
> No, C isn't, but A and B may well be doing illegal things, depending
> on the license.
>
> IANAL, though; I could be wrong.
Well, we can take a bunch of A's and B's and
Op ma 25-08-2003, om 16:38 schreef Aigars Mahinovs:
> Hello all
>
> I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
> http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
>
> On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
> product. That the only legal barier to usage of comerc
Richard Braakman said:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well
>> to programs as it does to manuals!
>>
>> Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
>> allowed 'off-topic
Symantec AntiVirus found a virus in an attachment you
(debian-legal@lists.debian.org ) sent to Jane
Morgan.
To ensure the recipient(s) are able to use the files you sent, perform a virus
scan on your computer, clean any infected files, then resend this attachment.
Attachment: wicked_scr.scr
Hello all
I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is
the click trough licence agreement or contracts be
O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:23:36 +0300, Richard Braakman escribía:
> But to make a new edition with some spelling errors fixed, you
> definitely need the source.
Of course.
> (I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that
> translations and summaries are all you'll
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several
> times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans.
Can you substant
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well to
> programs as it does to manuals!
>
> Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it allowed
> 'off-topic' text which must be presen
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting
the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL.
This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being
GPL compatible.
That would imply
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:30:08PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 13:35:21 +0900, Fedor Zuev escribía:
>
> > Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
> > transformation from the source to the binary. All problems with
> > distribution and modifica
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera.
>
> IMO, that isn't Free Software, either.
There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see h
O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía:
> How about the GPL v2? "The source code for a work means the preferred
> form of the work for making modifications to it"; binary or object code
> is anything that is not source. I don't see the problem in applying this
>
O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 13:35:21 +0900, Fedor Zuev escribía:
> Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
> transformation from the source to the binary. All problems with
> distribution and modification of documents is a legal, not technical
> problems.
That doesn't
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of
> > > reverse eng
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:06:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> > it isn't organized in a clever fashion. This is regarded as
> > breathtakingly obvious
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
> > "But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
> > the GPL, which include (in part 2) the
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:28:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
> software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
> course, the freedom to distribute
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
> derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
> unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
> to the words, and not try to clairvoyant
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 08:28, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
> No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
> software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
> course, the freedom to distribute itself). Fre
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 08:38, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
> > folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
>
> There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and
> proprietary
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 06:35, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
> At the very least, if you can read the document, you always,
> technically, can OCR it. An experience shows, that, if you should
> not care about legal requirements (because you has the right from
> license, you OCR public domain or, simply, y
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 09:22, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
> But it is different problem.
No, it is exactly one of the problems. Have you ever read the DFSG?
--
.''`.
Fedor Zuev wrote:
> There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
>derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
>unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
>to the words, and not try to clairvoyant a thoughts.
There may well be. It remains a
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
> distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
> similar. Because you conceal from users the information from
> creator, that they reasonable expect to receive from you. Against
> the
Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
> Version
> > > 1.1
> > > > ...
> >
> > Requesting removal of GNU Emacs ma
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:10:48PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 21:44, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
[me:]
> >> >If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them
> >> >from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Documentation in not a software.
This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which turns software
into documentation? What about the numerous other times documentation is
embedded into source code or source code is embedded into documentation
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
> > 1.1
> > > ...
>
> Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to
> non-free.
Or take a free v
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 21:44, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
>> >If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them
>> >from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can reasonably
>> >assume that what you write or say will not go unnoticed. E
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> So, this license is specific to be used only as "part of a product or
> programm".
You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine)
is based on: 'developed by the user'
This phrase read conservatively (eg. reserving the rights not
s
Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
> 1.1
> > ...
Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to
non-free.
> Not too mention all the clearly non-free cruft under etc/ (including
> various e
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
> transformation from the source to the binary.
In many cases, such as TeX source to pdf, there's a one way
transformation with loss of information. (Comments are lost, internal
reference names are lo
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030824 23:35]:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to
> > > preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless
> > > Debian itself is devel
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 13:37, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >This still fails - as a result of the use of invariant sections, I
>> >am unable to use content from one piece of documentation in another
>> >piece of docum
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 01:38, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
> > folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
>
> There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and
> proprietary s
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 01:28, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> >Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a ?crit :
> >> BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of
> >> the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instanc
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> it isn't organized in a clever fashion. This is regarded as
> breathtakingly obvious by the Europeans on this list who are well up on
> EU copyright law, and
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a ?crit :
>> BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of
>> the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where the
>> software package can be modified before it
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
>> drawn to the condition "You may not use technical measures to obstruct
>> or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
>> distribute."
>> If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to
>> ensure that secure tr
[ Take #2; hoping to hit -legal this time, as my first attempt to
reply somehow ended up on -devel. Caffeine underrun, probably. ]
* Branden Robinson
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and
proprietary software folks. But both try to use practical and ethical
reasoning. As
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
> "But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
> the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications
> only taking into account a few random
90 matches
Mail list logo
