On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:01:41PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law. The presumption is "All
> rights reserved unless you have explicit permission".
The fact that it never expires is what sucks about it. The default
copyright permissions aren'
Please 'reply all' on any replies as I don't normally subscribe
to debian-legal, and it will also document the discussion along
with the ITP.
I've filed an ITP for LLVM -- the Low-Level Virtual Machine, a
compiler toolset that provides a C and C++ compiler. More info
on LLVM can be found at http:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm vaguely aware of a piece of software which contains both GFDL
> licensed material, and possibly code which was dropped in without
> actually checking the licence for compatibility with the GPL.
>
> A gargantuan number of people over the years have contributed code to
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 05:44:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
> > name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
> > use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
>
> It can,
"mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order to
not infringe their trademarks."
I think plenty of dialog with Mozilla is a good idea. If they don't like the
way we package Thunderbird or any of the other packages, I recommend using
really generic names for each of
Gervase Markham wrote:
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
Yes, that's right, but we don't want to be upstream or another
> So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
> name an "important freedom"? That's definitely debatable. The name you
> use to refer to a bit of software doesn't affect its function.
It can, especially in the case of a web browser; consider web servers
that verify that
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:06:12AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Exactly.
> > DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
> > something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
> > and not to downstream recipients
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:15AM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >>The Mozilla trademark license seems to be rather harmless
> >>at that because they give permission to retain the command names.
> >
> >Judging from the followups to your message, it seems that this is not
> >the case... :-(
>
>
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly.
> DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
> something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
> and not to downstream recipients as well.
There's some contention over this. Based on the discussion on
debia
Francesco Poli wrote:
Exactly.
DFSG #8 seems quite clear to me: we do *not* consider Free
something that gives all the other important freedoms to Debian only,
and not to downstream recipients as well.
So the question is: is the right to call a bit of software by a certain
name an "important f
Francesco Poli wrote:
Yes, but is requiring a global replacing of trademarked strings and
images acceptable?
I mean: it seems that Mozilla is requiring us
* either to comply with strict modification constraints
Not so strict, really. Certainly not to the level of preventing security
patches.
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:28:43 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> If those rights are not available - under the same terms - to our
> downstreams (be they users, custom distros... whatever), then by the
> spirit of DFSG #8 (at least IMO), we shouldn't be able to make use of
> them either.
Exactly.
DFSG #8 s
[Since Sylpheed messed up with the GPG signature, I resend this message
(hopefully) correctly signed; I apologize for this]
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:56:45 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
> They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
> mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:37:30PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I'm vaguely aware of a piece of software which contains both GFDL
> licensed material, and possibly code which was dropped in without
> actually checking the licence for compatibility with the GPL.
I'm not quite sure what you m
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:37:30PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> So here's a hypothetical situation; say the current upstream maintainer
> was to announce in a very public place, with Cc's to all known
> contributor e-mail addresses, his intent to change the licence of the
> code to GPL-2 (in
I demand that Glenn Maynard may or may not have written...
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 06:22:20PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 01:48:12AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
>> [fetching firmware on finding hardware which needs it: wget or packaged?]
Fetch every time and fetch on
I'm vaguely aware of a piece of software which contains both GFDL
licensed material, and possibly code which was dropped in without
actually checking the licence for compatibility with the GPL.
A gargantuan number of people over the years have contributed code to
it, and many have claimed copyrigh
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 06:22:20PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 01:48:12AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> [fetching firmware on finding hardware which needs it: wget or packaged?]
> >> Fetch every time and fetch once. That looks like a difference to me...
>
> > How could "fet
I demand that Glenn Maynard may or may not have written...
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 01:48:12AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
[fetching firmware on finding hardware which needs it: wget or packaged?]
>> Fetch every time and fetch once. That looks like a difference to me...
> How could "fetch every ti
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So if EEPROMs contain software, why "don't [you] get to distribute any
>> drivers"? I don't understand.
>
> You can get software out of an firmware-EEPROM on a hardware device.
> I don't think it's appr
Dear all,
* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050104 13:05]:
> tags 288429 -sarge-ignore
> El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 20:57 +0100, Kilian Krause escribió:
> > tags 288429 +sarge-ignore
Please do not add or remove the sarge-ignore tag. The sarge-ignore tag
might only be added by the relea
tags 288429 -sarge-ignore
thanks
El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 20:57 +0100, Kilian Krause escribió:
> tags 288429 +sarge-ignore
> thanks
>
> Hi Jerome,
>
> Am Montag, den 03.01.2005, 19:40 +0100 schrieb Jerome Warnier:
> > Subject: asterisk: Hold music are not DFSG-free
> > Package: asterisk
> > Vers
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 11:56:24PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that
> > sucks - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
> > understand that. :-)
>
> Here'
25 matches
Mail list logo
