Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> I used to be a flag-waving FSF patriot, but for reasons
> people familiar with the present GFDL GR debate will
> appreciate, the FSF has lost my trust. My question is
> as follows. The FSF retains special authority
> unilaterally to extend the GPL, LGPL, FDL, etc. For
On 2/12/06, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if
> > the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and
> > library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible
> > that the compan
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other
> people who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful
> to me is one of the prime reasons I like free software -- if stuff is
> useful, I can sha
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
copy.
Right, so you can't *distribute* a copy on an ASCII-only medium, even
of th
On 12 Feb 2006, Craig Sanders told this:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Now, I'd like to download this (translated) manual and place it on
>> a portable device I own, so I can easily read it without killing a
>> bunch of trees. I think this is clearly a us
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:28:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
> > capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
> > license) to control.
>
> This is
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
> capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
> license) to control.
This is hardly true. The GFDL says you must transmit the original
Japanese text in the ca
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Others have already made the point that the AGPL is not a narrowly
>> defined restriction -- that it's actually quite significant and
>> ill-defined under certain circumstances.
>
> Narrowly defined is subjective. I'm not disagreeing with your
>
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 05:19:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
> > are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
> > copy.
>
> Right, so you can't
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Now, I'd like to download this (translated) manual and place it on a
> portable device I own, so I can easily read it without killing a bunch
> of trees. I think this is clearly a useful modification, and I think
> that I should
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
> are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
> copy.
Right, so you can't *distribute* a copy on an ASCII-only medium, even
of the English translation of a
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> We have already discussed many examples, if you have some new example
> you are welcome to share it with us. :-)
I don't recall the following example being brought up.
Let's assume a manual, written by
> "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
>
> >> Isn't this exactly what the Affero bit and GPLv3(7d) do? They also
> >> "bring copyright into the interactions between [ASP software] and
> >> [...] users".
> >
> > No. They provide a narrowly defined restriction on modification --
> >
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:13:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > If you have one GPL-ish license designed for arcades, and another for toll
> > booths, and another for web services, then you can't use code written for
> > toll booths in a web service, and vice versa.
>
> That's a pratical p
Glenn L. McGrath wrote:
> This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can
> help straighten me out with this.
>
> I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed
> binaries that link to GPL incompatible libraries.
OK.
> The current situation.
> A GPL'ed bin
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:18:26PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > There's the possibility that we solve this problems in different ways
> > for different classes of license. The AGPL might not do that now but
> > maybe we can make it do that or find another license that does
> > that. Maybe w
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:40:23 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:12:39PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source
> > (at up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could
> > easily be stuck in the fine p
On 2/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I believe that the position is similar in `Civil law' systems,
> (France, Germany and similar jurisprudential systems).
Strange things happen in the civil law district of Munich I.
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_2
18 matches
Mail list logo
