On Thursday 20 January 2005 23:18, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Whoa there, Tex. I disagree with some of the FSF's claims about the
> legal interpretation of the GPL, and I think that crying "preliminary
> injunction" is going to get them in trouble one of these days. But I
> don't que
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:55:12 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:53:37 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I'd say this differently. The program is not a derivative work of
> > > the library if it was written without any of the releva
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:10:57 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>On the other hand, a program written againt a unique GPLed
>>library, with no other implementation, is almost certainly a derivative
>>work of that library: you are combining two ex
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 05:09:03PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1) Some sort of identification of the author of the work is required
> > in order to allow people to exercise their DFSG guaranteed freedoms
> > upon a work.
> >
> > If we did not have so
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 05:09:03PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1) Some sort of identification of the author of the work is required
> in order to allow people to exercise their DFSG guaranteed freedoms
> upon a work.
>
> If we did not have some sort of identification of the copyright holder
> of
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:57:26 -0500, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... This is just as clearly represented in the DFSG as
> "modifications are allowed provided you pet a cat".
This is _so_ going to be in the license for the next piece of original
code I write. :)
Cheers,
- Michael
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:53:37 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I'd say this differently. The program is not a derivative work of
> > the library if it was written without any of the relevant copyrighted
> > material of that library.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 04:26:18PM -0
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:43:59AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:27:28PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> >> >3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the
> >> > support of your modified version, and
> >>
> >> (3) seem
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:29:10 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
> > specific. Whether or not this is actually against DFSG #8 or not is
> > beside the point, I don't want to play if it's onl
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:24:27AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > (3) seems to fail the Dissident test.
>
> It clearly fails the dissident test, but since that's not clearly
> embodied in the DFSG it's up to the maintainer to decide whether or not
> it's a problem.
Yes, it is. "The license mu
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Permission to distribute binaries produced by compiling modified
> > sources is granted, provided you
> >1. distribute the corresponding source modifications from the
> > released version in t
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:27:28PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> >3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the
>> > support of your modified version, and
>>
>> (3) seems to fail the Dissident test.
>
>It also seems to require that I provide sup
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (3) seems to fail the Dissident test.
It clearly fails the dissident test, but since that's not clearly
embodied in the DFSG it's up to the maintainer to decide whether or not
it's a problem.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:53:37 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I'd say this differently. The program is not a derivative work of
> the library if it was written without any of the relevant copyrighted
> material of that library.
No, it's not a derivative work if it was writte
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:27:28PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Permission to distribute binaries produced by compiling modified
> > sources is granted, provided you
> >1. distribute the corresponding source modifications from the
> > released version in the form of a patch file
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Unfortunatly, the license itself still not ideal. It's arguably DFSG
> Free, but not something I would recommend using for a work that
> purports to be Free Software:
> Permission to distribute binaries produced by compiling modified
> sources is g
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:06:37AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
> >notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
> >to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
>notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
>to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
Where "many" in this context should be read as
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:59:23 +0100, Martin Hardie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> It's nice to see some FSF doubters (I have just been reading this thread in
> the archives) and questioning of their speech based copyright vision. I think
> I agree with Micahel that precedent is fairly against t
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:46:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I agree that I was tacitly assuming that I was writing for people who knew
> what debian is (a volunteer free-software group which helps coordinate
> -- and relies heavily on -- support from people who are not explicitly
> members of th
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:47:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Anyways, freedom is a very broad issue, but the freedoms Debian is
> > concerned about are rather specific kinds of freedom (especially those
> > that allow us to distribute debian on multiple platforms, and those that
> > allow us
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:47:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Anyways, freedom is a very broad issue, but the freedoms Debian is
> concerned about are rather specific kinds of freedom (especially those
> that allow us to distribute debian on multiple platforms, and those that
> allow us to fix bug
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 06:59:23PM +0100, Martin Hardie wrote:
> It's nice to see some FSF doubters (I have just been reading this thread in
> the archives) and questioning of their speech based copyright vision. I think
> I agree with Micahel that precedent is fairly against the FSF and Lessig
Scripsit Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Now then, I personally will not accept any deal that is Debian
> specific. Whether or not this is actually against DFSG #8 or not is
> beside the point, I don't want to play if it's only because we're the
> popular kid. This problem goes beyond Debian.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:07:16AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:41:41PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > The user has T installed, and types "apt-get install
MJ Ray wrote:
Should I set this in browserconfig.properties or what?
about:config in your built and running copy, or one of the default
preferences files (not sure which) in the source. This probably isn't
the correct fix, but it's one that'll work. I mentioned it merely for
information; I'm no
On Thursday 20 January 2005 17:38, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:17:11AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Agreed. But use of a brand name to attempt to stop other people from
> > giving away the same thing you do under the same name is a bit of a
> > novelty.
>
> Advertisers
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:31:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:18:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > Andrew Suffield writes:
> >
> > > > About the only thing I've seen that will do (a) is static linking in
> > > > an ELF object, or an
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:38:40AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The exec() boundary is bogus. The interpreter waffle is bogus. The
> LGPL exemption is bogus. The syscall exemption is bogus. The
> Classpath exception is bogus. The entire claim that linking creates a
> derivative work is b
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:22:55AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> When combining the two is a mechanical operation, the combination is
> not separately copyrightable, and hence is not a derivative work.
Unless [of course] they were already a derivative work, for some other
reason.
> Nor is th
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:17:11AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Agreed. But use of a brand name to attempt to stop other people from
> giving away the same thing you do under the same name is a bit of a
> novelty.
Advertisers have been doing this for years, as have broadcasters.
[There's w
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The copyright license is terminated if you attempt to defend your patent
> rights against Apple.
It should be emphasised that this is the case if you defend /any/ patent
rights against Apple. It's not limited to software patents, and it's not
limite
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:30:53 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> - The copyright license is terminated if you attempt to defend your patent
> rights against Apple.
> - The license requires you to publish any local modifications if you deploy
> public services based on the
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:10:59 -0500 (EST), Walter Landry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
> entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
> appropriate input and parse openssl's output. Would that constitute
> linking?
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:10:57 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> On the other hand, a program written againt a unique GPLed
> library, with no other implementation, is almost certainly a derivative
> work of that library: you are combining two expressive and copyrightable
> wor
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:36:33AM +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course. I'm just pointing out that this process is nowhere near done
> and you should not lead people to believe otherwise. I'm sceptical that
> it will be done quickly, because one still has to hack to get firefox
> b
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > the blasted about: screen calls itself Firefox/1.0,
> It gets that from the UserAgent string, I believe. Set the pref
> general.useragent.override to override it, or general.useragent. to
> change various bits. [...]
Should I set th
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:18:55 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > But the FSF is going to lose a lot of credibility, even with the
> > choir, if they wait until their noses are rubbed in it in the next
> > lawsuit to
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:52:29PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
>> > > and
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:32:13 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:01:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > The end being achieved is a major factor in finding a "functional
> > interface" for legal purposes.
>
> We're in violent agreement, here.
I agree,
Jeff,
Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
DFSG. Although there's been extensive discussion about *which* poin
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:14:34 +, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Replace "the name of the package will have to be changed in all
> as-yet-unreleased versions of Debian" with "permission to use the
> trademarks will be withdrawn for all as-yet-unreleased versions of Debian".
>
42 matches
Mail list logo
