Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As has been settled on this list, Eclipse is not a derivative of Kaffe
> and does not contain any copyright-protected portion of Kaffe. It is
> possible to claim that "Eclipse+Kaffe" is a work based on Kaffe, but
> by the same argument, "Debian" is a wo
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
>> > > > We covered all this earlier, and there was no good explanation of why
>> > > > Eclipse + Kaffe is bad but other GPL-incompatible packages + GPLed
>> > > > Essential: yes packages are okay. For example: does any non-GPL
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:43:08PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
>> But none in Debian main. People seem to be missing the point, so I
>> will repeat: I am not saying that Eclipse is not distributable, just
>> that it can't go into main.
>
> That's easy to
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 noteclipse". Since
>>
>
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 03:15:23AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> I think most of those are just aggregation on a medium of
>> distribution. Only the tree of dependencies has to be checked.
>
> So what you&
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Sniffen write:
>>Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> That's some strong crack you've been smoking Brian; I'd give it a rest
>>> for a while. Your interpretation of how applications, libraries and
>>> the kernel live together is *spe
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> When they are entwined with dependencies, every component of the
>> collection must be distributed under the GPL.
>
> The GPL doesn
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But distributing them as one work -- say, the Debian OS -- is covered
>> by the GPL. In what way is Debian not a "work that you dist
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
>
>> " Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules
>> is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms
>> and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
>> combin
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:31:13PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
>> >&
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Why not? Which freedoms does it impact upon?
>>
>> The freedom to make and distribute modifications without paying the
>> author. Becoming part of a commons is not a payment.
>
> By that definition, all licenses that imposes any restrictions on the
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>> >
>> >> Fortunately, the sentence beginning "A program using..." i
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> The license on Kaffe does not in any way inhibit distribution of
>> copies of Eclipse. I don't believe for a second that Eclipse is
>> derivative of any particular JVM. But Eclipse+Ka
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>> GNU classpath is GPL+linking exception which allows it to link with
>>> code that is licensed with GPL non-compatible licenses.
>> Thanks. That sounds like an important piece of e
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
>> production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's
>> right to control copying and distrib
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> How does providing extra freedoms to certain recipients decrease the
>>> freeness of a piece of softwa
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Fortunately, the sentence beginning "A program using..." is not
>> relevant to my argument. I'm not talking about derivative works. I'm
>> talking about an entire
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Sniffen wrote:
>>
>>Ignore the GPL FAQ for a minute and look at the GPL's 2b:
>>
>>b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>>whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>>part thereof, to
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>> ... In context, this applies only to derivative works and
>> (copyrightable) collections (the GPL says "collective works", but this
>> is obviously a thinko) under copyright law. ...
>
> My error -- "collective works" is treated as a
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Dalibor Topic <
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:31:13PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
>> production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's
>> ri
Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>
>> Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries
>> which are distributed with / part of Kaffe. There clearly are
>> bindings prov
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 2005-15-01 at 09:13 +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
>>> Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>>>
>>&
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The user has T installed, and types "apt-get install noteclipse". Since
Does this also answer the case of Debian CDs?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>> >
>> >> But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types &quo
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> First, there's a separation exception:
>>
>> If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
>> Program, and can be reasonably considered
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
>>>> eclipse,
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about running; I'm talking about making a copy of
>> Eclipse and a copy of Kaffe and putting them both on an end-user's
>> system such that when I type
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
>> eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
>> package and from dozens of others are loaded into memory. The process
>> on my computer is mechanical, so we s
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your implementation creates a huge loophole in GPL, that I do not
> believe is there. Let's continue your way of seeing "interepter
> features" and see what would be the consequences.
>
> An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible o
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking
>> about any work that in whole or in
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types "apt-get
>> install eclipse; eclipse" is a program incorporating a JVM and many
>> libraries. Debian's not
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there actually is something going wrong, I'd really like for someone
> to spell out what it is in some fashion which addresses the above points.
Everything you said there seems reasonable to me (at first glance).
It's fine for the Kaffe developers and
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
>> eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
>> package and from dozens of others are loaded into memory. The process
>> on my computer is mechanical, so we s
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your implementation creates a huge loophole in GPL, that I do not
> believe is there. Let's continue your way of seeing "interepter
> features" and see what would be the consequences.
>
> An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible o
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
>> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
>> softw
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
>>> *itself* into memory,
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking
>> about any work that in whole or in
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types "apt-get
>> install eclipse; eclipse" is a program incorporating a JVM and many
>> libraries. Debian's not
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there actually is something going wrong, I'd really like for someone
> to spell out what it is in some fashion which addresses the above points.
Everything you said there seems reasonable to me (at first glance).
It's fine for the Kaffe developers and
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
> *itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
> or other "bindings", or whether it asks the user to tilt switches on
> an array of light bulbs is irrelevant to th
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
>>>particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevan
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
>> clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
>> softw
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
>>> *itself* into memory,
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
> *itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
> or other "bindings", or whether it asks the user to tilt switches on
> an array of light bulbs is irrelevant to th
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
>>>particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevan
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> [no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Ja
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> These facilities include class loading, class instantiation,
> synchronization, garbage collection (ie. you can trigger GC from within
> your program), reflection (ie. you can ask VM "what are methods that
> this class have?").
Those are featu
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the
> literal interpretation is what was meant?
I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
modif
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> [no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Ja
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> These facilities include class loading, class instantiation,
> synchronization, garbage collection (ie. you can trigger GC from within
> your program), reflection (ie. you can ask VM "what are methods that
> this class have?").
Those are featu
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the
> literal interpretation is what was meant?
I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
modif
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> You are ignoring the
>> creative act
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>> >
>> > "However, when the interpreter is ex
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
>>> GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
>>>
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
> There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
>
> The *new* Eclipse packages that are being prepared now and which we've
> been discussing (I already sa
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
> To: Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, d
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> You are ignoring the
>> creative act
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>> >
>> > "However, when the interpreter is ex
> It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
> GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
> some odd version of Eclipse, but the standard releases have no such
> requirement.
While most of what you said seemed perfectly reasonable, this does
not
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
>>> GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
>>>
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
> There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
>
> The *new* Eclipse packages that are being prepared now and which we've
> been discussing (I already sa
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
>> derived from any of them.
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do docum
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
> To: Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, d
> It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
> GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
> some odd version of Eclipse, but the standard releases have no such
> requirement.
While most of what you said seemed perfectly reasonable, this does
not
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
>> derived from any of them.
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do docum
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> great amount of time
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> great amount of time and thought. Different
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> great amount of time
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> great amount of time and thought. Different
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of buildi
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of buildi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
> Hallo,
>
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
>> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
>
> DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distributi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
> Hallo,
>
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
>> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
>
> DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distributi
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
>
> It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
> other people's designs as "original clip art."
>
>
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> (c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
>
> It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
> other people's designs as "original clip art."
>
>
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
>> >
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
>> >
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
> is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I say in kindness and not hostility: "put your money where your mouth
> is." Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> clearly what it is". Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
>> depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
>
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> clearly what it is". Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
>> depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
>
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
>> selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
>>
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
>> selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
>>
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm
There's one now. It's perfect
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
> hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
>
> How are these different?
They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm
There's one now. It's perfect
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
> quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
> still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
> by the upstream don't get downrated. But
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I should admit that I don't know anything about such copyright law,
> however I think that as long it is just a drawing without any
> copyrighted logo, it's not a problem.
A quick look over these pictures suggests no *copyright* problems.
They look l
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
> quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
> still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
> by the upstream don't get downrated. But
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I should admit that I don't know anything about such copyright law,
> however I think that as long it is just a drawing without any
> copyrighted logo, it's not a problem.
A quick look over these pictures suggests no *copyright* problems.
They look l
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The reality is that we do *not* require authors to extend us a license to
> patents as part of their software license in order to consider it free. We
> merely opt not to distribute software that's covered by patents that are
> actively being enforced.
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
> from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
> demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
> derived works) is as an offer of (bilate
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:19:33AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> >>>As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be
>> >>>over
>> >>>Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore.
>> >>
>> >>It terminates a
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that
>> *anything* infringes any patent.
>>
>> As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be
>> over
>>
While interesting to read, what you've written is not applicable to
the issue of moving code from program to manual or vice versa. If I
submit a new emacs-mode to the FSF, and assign copyright to them as is
their practice, they can have somebody else document it line-by-line
and distribute it unde
There are two issues here: the DFSG-freeness of the CC SA-A license
and the GPL-compatibleness of that license. I can't speak to its
freeness right now, since I don't have time to read the 2.0 version in
its entirety. But it's clearly not GPL compatible. To be clear, by
"not GPL compatible" I me
1 - 100 of 629 matches
Mail list logo
