Josh Triplett wrote:
Works by the US government are not entitled to copyright; they are
immediately public domain. Works done by contractors for the US
government may be subject to copyright; the government may *hold*
copyrights, they just don't get copyrights for works they author.
thanks to e
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 06:07:19PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Damn. Still being misuderstood. The intention of that paragraph was not
> to allow arbitrary restrictions, but rather to indicate that perhaps we
> do believe that *some* (as yet unspecified, but soon to be specified)
> restrictions a
Josh Triplett wrote:
> I agree that this proposition is not specific enough about the types of
> conditions that we consider acceptable. I would propose the following
> addition to the above text, which I believe specifies a set of
> acceptable conditions that many on -legal agree with:
>
> """
>
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 05:35:27PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>Debian accepts that it may in certain circumstances be desirable
> >>(or at least acceptable) for software licenses to limit certain
> >>freedoms in order better to protect Free Software as a whole. A
> >>current ex
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:57:21AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Start with something uncontroversial and then build to:
>
> [...]
> > > In the light of the threat that software patents pose to Free
> > > Software, we believe that it is likewise acceptable for software
> > > licenses to plac
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:49:42PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> When one work requires the other in order to function, then you have
> gotten past mere aggregation. So Emacs is not required for Kaffe to
> work, or vice versa. Putting them on the same medium is mere
> aggregation.
"Requires to r
Walter Landry writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Under copyright law, collective works include those that the GPL
> > refers to as "mere aggregation." How do you propose we distinguish
> > between what the GPL considers mere aggregation and others?
>
> When one work requ
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is
> > > > > not subject to the GPL.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 22,
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
>> >> program being inter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Your messages suggested that you'd review "after a few months"
> > mainly to see who is summarising, so now seems like a good
> > opportunity. Do you have other comments about whether this turned
> > out like you imagined?
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding. I thin
> > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is
> > > > not subject to the GPL.
> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > The key word is "by itself". There is no problem with Eclipse being
> >
Nick proposed:
> > Debian accepts that it may in certain circumstances be desirable
> > (or at least acceptable) for software licenses to limit certain
> > freedoms in order better to protect Free Software as a whole.
Start with something uncontroversial and then build to:
[...]
> >
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:11:27 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > You think the "bright line" which has yet to be drawn is not far from
> > the theory articulated in lotus an lexmark? That's... a fairly murky
> > way of thinking...
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 05:33:39PM -0800,
Michael Poole wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>>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? It ends up using all of the same code
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Encouraging competitive interoperation is a valid public policy goal,
> pursued fairly consistently by the courts in the case law that I've
> read. Of the theories that have been applied to disallow the use of
> the copyright monopoly to block interoperation, I think si
Walter Landry writes:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is
> > > > not subject to the GPL.
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > The
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
> >> program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the
> >
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:55:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > See above. This is really getting quite silly. We have strong reason to
> > > believe that the Kaffe folks *do not* interpret the GPL as co
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is
> > > not subject to the GPL.
>
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > The key word is "by itself". There is no
When you contacted debian-legal about this licence last month, the
general opinion seemed to be that each case needed checking.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg2.html
I think it is unhelpful of you:
* not to remind us that you asked about this licence before,
* not to find out
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 08:42:07PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
>>On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:19:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>>>Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
>
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:11:27 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> You think the "bright line" which has yet to be drawn is not far from
> the theory articulated in lotus an lexmark? That's... a fairly murky
> way of thinking...
I think that a "bright line" could be drawn substan
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >*D R A F T*
> >Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0
> I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my
> summary. Please indicate why:
> [ ] What a lo
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:47:19 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> >*D R A F T*
> >Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0
>
> I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my
> summary.
Or maybe that nobody (strongly) disagrees? ;-)
I personally did n
> > "Written to use the library", in the simple case, with no trickery
> > involved, means that you are incorporating a modified form of some of
> > the copyrighted code of that library. In the typical case, this would
> > be anything covered by copyright that has to be included when compiling
> >
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:47:19PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >*D R A F T*
> >Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0
>
> I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my
> summary. Please indic
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:19:43 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:41:02PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > I'm focusing on a simple case. Pre-existing GPL library, shipped
> > unaltered, or with any bug fixes and enhancements contributed
> > upstream. New
Is this really free software license?
CDDL (Common Development and Distribution License)
http://www.opensolaris.org/
http://www.opensolaris.org/license/cddl_license.txt
http://www.opensolaris.org/license/cddl_license.html
P.S: I do not subscribe to this mailing list, so please Cc: to me.
--
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:41:02PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I'm focusing on a simple case. Pre-existing GPL library, shipped
> unaltered, or with any bug fixes and enhancements contributed
> upstream. New application ("PEOTL") written to use the library.
> Tested and shipped together,
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:02:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:51:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
> > ... So I'll use "program exclusive of
> > the library", or PEOTL, instead.
> Except I'm holding that this kind of distinction is meaningless
MJ Ray wrote:
> US-knowers: does government work attract any copyright?
Works by the US government are not entitled to copyright; they are
immediately public domain. Works done by contractors for the US
government may be subject to copyright; the government may *hold*
copyrights, they just don't
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 23:52]:
> Posts from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to -legal in February 2004 about "debian-legal
> review of licenses" suggested that "anyone can volunteer to
> summarize a particular discussion, post a summary to -legal to get
> the "ok" and then send it on" and that
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-19 15:10]:
> > Last time I suggested that -legal should engage in more active
> > arbitration with upstream
>
> Where precisely did you make this suggestion?
I had the discussion about the OLS in mind in which I asked whether
anyone had tried talkin
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-24 02:25]:
> Would you kindly let me know whether you intend to retract the above
> snarky personal attack, issued in your formal capacity as Debian
> Project Leader and grounded upon a questionable recollection of the
> facts, given that even after n
Henning Makholm wrote:
>Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>*D R A F T*
>>Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0
>
>I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my
>summary. Please indicate why:
>
> [ ] What a load of drivel! You're
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>*D R A F T*
>Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0
I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my
summary. Please indicate why:
[ ] What a load of drivel! You're trying to be holier than RMS.
> ImageJ is a work of the United States Government. It is in the public
> domain
> and open source. There is no copyright. You are free to do anything you
> want
> with this source but I like to get credit for my work and I would like
> you to
> offer your changes to me so I can possibly add
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:09:10AM +0100, Paolo Ariano wrote:
>Hi *
>
>yesterday i've finished to pack a new .deb of ImageJ
>a java image analysis software, is not under GPL but in the
>source code there is something that souns like:
>
>ImageJ is a work of the United States Government. It is in
>th
Hi *
yesterday i've finished to pack a new .deb of ImageJ
a java image analysis software, is not under GPL but in the
source code there is something that souns like:
ImageJ is a work of the United States Government. It is in the public
domain
and open source. There is no copyright. You are free t
39 matches
Mail list logo
