On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:07:18 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > > What I meant is that while GPL uses copyright to give people rights,
> > > it does not restrict people beyond what copyright already imposes.
>
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 17:11, Ben Finney wrote:
> For works in a form that don't have a clear place to put such a "copyright
> header" (e.g. an audio recording, or a formatted data file), the "copyright
> information in a separate file" approach makes more sense; but the
> maintenance and agg
Michael Tautschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PS.: Please CC me, I'm not subscribed.
Done.
> I'm the maintainer of the sat4j package, which, in the upstream SVN,
> includes lots of test data (plain text files, think of them as
> mathematical equations). Currently these lack any kind of
> copy
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:51:25 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:05:44 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The FSF has a draft license named the "Simpler Free Documentation
> > > License" http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html>
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:07:18 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > What I meant is that while GPL uses copyright to give people rights,
> > it does not restrict people beyond what copyright already imposes.
>
> It's not clear that the AGPLv3 does either; pu
Dear list,
I'm the maintainer of the sat4j package, which, in the upstream SVN, includes
lots of test data (plain text files, think of them as mathematical equations).
Currently these lack any kind of copyright/license statement, so I remove them
before building the tar ball. It would, however, be
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:17:31 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The key difference is that the GPL does not in any way restrict the
> > *use* of a *modified* or *unmodified* work. The AfferoGPL restricts
> > the *use* of a *modified* work.
>
> I find it be
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> What I meant is that while GPL uses copyright to give people rights,
> it does not restrict people beyond what copyright already imposes.
It's not clear that the AGPLv3 does either; public performance of a
work is not a right granted by copyright law
* Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080825 06:33]:
> > [???] The GPL ensures that everyone is allowed all the things they
> > would be if there was no license at all.
>
> If there was no license at all to a work, the freedoms granted by the
> GPL would be wholly restricted by copyright. I think you
2008/8/25 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I respectfully request that PySoy not be packaged in Debian if the AGPLv3 is
> confirmed as non-free in the eyes of your project, as this would be
> considered by our project as false advertising in grouping us along side
> blatently proprietary apps.
I
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The key difference is that the GPL does not in any way restrict the
> *use* of a *modified* or *unmodified* work. The AfferoGPL restricts
> the *use* of a *modified* work.
I find it best to avoid making such statements about the term "use",
since it ha
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This group's earlier declairation that the GNU FDL is non-free
> caused a rift in the community.
The rift existed long before the discussion about the freeness of the
FDL. That the FSF decided the FDL was desirable, or its restrictions
acceptable, are sur
It would seem as consensus has been reached.
Once confirmed, someone should update
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
I respectfully request that PySoy not be packaged in Debian if the AGPLv3 is
confirmed as non-free in the eyes of your project, as this would be
considered
13 matches
Mail list logo
