On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Elizabeth Fong wrote:
>Can someone look at http://bugs.debian.org/280864 please? It is
>likely we'll need legal advice to proceed.
>Quick summary of the situation:
>2001 to 2002? - Dmitry Stogov wrote Turck-MMCache on contract to
>Turcksoft St. Petersburg
>2002-12-09 - Turck-
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> >A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
>> >ROM, because the environments were so constrained that ROM-based service
>> >routines were very heavily used.
>>
>> That's interesting and true. But "a lot" is not "all".
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Francesco Poli wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
>> reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
>> license without modification. This license may not b
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>> Now, the French contributor can sneak something past debian-legal by
>> writing a license text that appears to grant permissions that the
>> contributor has no power to grant. Is that what you want?
>Are you sure the location of the contributor
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Dylan Thurston wrote:
>On 2003-10-08, Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In this case, it is very unlikely that TYPEBANK Co. will win
>> a lawsuit in any country. After all, similarity is not implies
>> derivative work. But it is very lik
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:59:22AM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
>> As a result of KANOU's investigation, LABO123 32-dot font is same as the
>> bitmap font (TYPEBANK Mincho M) that was developed by TYPEBANK Co.,
>Are these all bitmap fonts, then?
>In some
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> >Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
>> >in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before
>> >1995 is not redistributable over the Internet.
>> Can you give me spme online Resources about it ?
>
On Sat, 3 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The same (see above) point is not correct for political
>> speech. Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal
>> mode of operation and never was.
>Politi
On Sat, 3 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Such provision, IMHO, is contradicts to article 5 of Berne
>> Convention, when applied to copyright matters. Therefore, such
>> provision may make all license either ille
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, D. Starner wrote:
> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you know many modern (not public domain) political texts
> > of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?
> When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
On Fri, 2 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > > > The terms of use are to be construed in accordance with the Laws of
>> > > > England.
>>
>> It would be significantly inconvinient for a foreign user to be forced
>> to appear in a UK court should the copyright owner file suit against
>> the
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>Slipping between two definitions can be used to perform a
>rhetorical trick: first get agreement that "All X's are Y's" under
>the common definition of X, then change the definition of X and
>carry over the earlier agreement using the new definition.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> - Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
>> any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
>Mathieu, you're lying. Provide citations of any Debian Developer
>doing so -- provide citations of a non-
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
>If you do likewise.
>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
>No. Is it in Debian?
>> 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
>No. Is it in Debia
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
> FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers.
>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
> The lump of
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2003-09-26 08:04:12 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
>Not necessarily either.
>> 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
>No
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roland Mas wrote:
>Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 :
>> Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps
>> it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce
>> the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English.
>>
>>
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le lun 22/09/2003 ? 09:46, Glenn Maynard a ?crit :
>> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> > > IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarbal
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2003-09-19 19:37:59 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
>>> concept.
>> Berne Conve
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
>Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
>> >concept.
>>
>> Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
>T
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> >Within the United Kingdom, it doesn't exist,
>>
>> Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, art. 32.
>That section is about the use of copyrighted materials for
>education. It does not apply to anything else.
>It is written in fiddly UK lawyerspeak
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>Richard Stallman wrote:
>>You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
>>be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
>>manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
>>
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>licence according to FSD. Note that freedom for certain modified
>versions (for example, even a work containing only the GNU Manifesto
>invariant section) are effectively blocked, which triggers this
>section of reasoning.
Do you really believe in this
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 11:00:01PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> >> There a lot of people in this list, who cares very much
>> >> about cost ("Invariant Sections is clearly non-free"), but cares
>>
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2003-09-12 21:41:52 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Really, I do not believe that you did not read FSD. All the
>> more so you menyioned it below.
>Please, why do you even write this? I can only think that you
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:41:52AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> There a lot of people in this list, who cares very much
>> about cost ("Invariant Sections is clearly non-free"), but cares
>I don't see what that ha
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>Fedor Zuev wrote:
You already lost your killfile? My condolences.
>> Please note, one of differences between DFSG and FSD is that
>> latter does not require possiblity of arbitrary modification of
>> work, but only &q
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>> > I have not yet got the impression that the
>> >people you name are "free beer zealots".
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2003-09-12 17:43:49 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots does not
>> show, AFAIK, any clear-cut principles of freedom (and Robinson
>> explicitly declines that DFSG
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Those words are simply an indirect way of declining to recognize the
>> difference between loss of freedom and practical inconvenience.
>That's not entirely true; I believe that debian-legal generally
>ma
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
>> Assuming we're talking about USA jurisdictions: 17 USC 106 et seq.
>> enumerates rights reserved to copyright owners by default. Others
>> are conveyed automatically to any lawful recipient of a covered work
>> --
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote to Jeremy Hankins:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>[I'm taking this off-list, as this is no longer really relevant
>there.]
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When FSF include Sun RPC code, that code was licens
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
>> Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>> It follows directly from contract law.
>>
>> The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from the
>> fact that "a license granting unlimited unrevokable
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes (quoting the Sun RPC license):
>>> but are not authorized to license or
>>> distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
>>> program developed by the user.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>>But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
>>>code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of th
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Moore wrote:
>Fedor Zuev said:
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>>>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>>> It almost certainly affect the normal use of program and
>>>> will be unacceptable because of this,
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
>> >> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
>> >> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
>> >>
On Thu, 27 Aug 2003, Stephen Ryan wrote:
>On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:13, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
>> as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.
>It is, by definition[0], off-topic. Therefore, as any good edito
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable.
>Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality
>involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc
>code? I don't see how that's relevant.
>>
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
>> ---/text/dossie/gfdl/fdl.txt--
>>
>> You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
>> commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
>> copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License
>> applies
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Anthony Towns writes:
>> Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
>> example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
>> expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
>> originality in the work to start with.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2003-08-27 05:52:57 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of
>> existed copyright laws) makes this difference. [...]
>Just a small reminder that you've
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>> May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
>> know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this
>> if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip
>> Manifesto and continue to use it)
>Maybe he will decide
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> 2) Can't be counted as accept any action that is not the
>>subject of the agreement. Subject of agreement in this case -
>>transfer of rights. Therefore, can't be counted as accept any
>
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le ven 29/08/2003 ? 10:42, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
>> Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your
>> problem.
>You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains
>all:
>> You are not aware?
>
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>>I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
>>>branched off into a discussion of originality. Unle
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 10:44 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>>
>> So, there is no censorship in the world as long as no one
>> threaten to kill you? Well.
>That's not what I said, and even if it were, there
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>GNU CVS repository, emacs/man/emacs.texi, revision 1.64
>The following two changes are made in this revision:
>-to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
>+to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
>and
>-(which
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
>> >If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a
>> >GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be
>> >to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the
>> >document.
>>
>> Heh. And,
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
>Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock
>> the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document
>> from your desktop. Get real!
>Exactly. According to the logic of the
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>>> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> Documentation in not a software.
>>> This has been refuted so many t
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>> Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally,
>> affects only professional distributors, there was little or no
>> problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so
>> large, that it affect the rights and interests of users a
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> >How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman'
>> >game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in
>> >source co
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>> No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
>> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
>> software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
>> course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
>> distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
>> similar. Because you conceal from users the information
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:55:05 +0900 (IRKST)
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>
>> JM>> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
>>
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
>> the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".
>> So I don't think we can conclude that such precautions are no longer
>> necessary.
>It's true that many h
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
>> derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
>> unrelated other work. But you, of course,
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:28:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
>> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
>> software is to promote freedom o
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
>Branden Robinson wrote:
>> If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being
>> grounded on "sweat-of-the-brow" arguments. In actual fact, very little
>> "IP law" in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that.
>If I ridic
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Documentation in not a software.
>This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which
>turns software into documentation? What about the numerous other
>times documentation
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
<...>
>You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
>exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
>for copyright infringement and winnin
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> What are you trying to rebute from my "clause" with it? It is more
>or less my reasoning: you can translate the book having only a
>hardcopy of it. Well, it is even standard practice. If you want to
>actually modify it -- well, you may either OCR it, or
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
>allowed 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source
>and object code of all derived versions, and must be displayed
>(perhaps through a command-line option) by every de
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
>> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
>> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
>> But it is different problem.
>
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>There a VERY large difference, as black from white, between me deciding
>not to repeat certain portions of Mr. Zuev's post[0] and sending people
>to intimidate or kill him. The former is known, at least in the free
>world, as free speech; the latter
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
>>to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
>>But it is different problem.
>The GFDL may only be intended for documentation and the like, but
>if I want to u
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
JM>> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
JM>> users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
JM>> best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue.
JM>Are you trying to assert point 2 of t
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 21:44, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
>> >If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them
>> >from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can reasonably
>> >assume that what you
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 13:37, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >This still fails - as a result of the use of invariant sections, I
>> >am unable to use content from one piece of documentat
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a ?crit :
>> BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of
>> the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where the
>> software package can be modified before it
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
>> drawn to the condition "You may not use technical measures to obstruct
>> or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
>> distribute."
>> If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to
>> ensure that secure tr
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>At a cost. While I understand the desire for the invariant
>sections, it can be wondered what freedom is most desirable: the
>freedom to run, study, redistribute and improve for everyone, or
>the freedom to run, study, redistribute and improve for only
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> But here you talked not about discrimination against using
>>the copies of manual, but about discrimination against creating
>>specific types of derivative works. This may be reasonable, but
>>please note, that in _this_ sense, many of debian/ma
On Sat, 22 Aug 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
>Scripsit Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> KD> So, no text from a document licensed under the
>> KD> GFDL which contained an invariant section could be included in an
>> KD> encyclopedia, since the invariant sec
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>No, you didn't get it. What I wrote before was example for why invariant.
>>sections _can_ be useful. Do not compare apples and pears[0]. On the
>>other hand is your anti-semetic message subject to penal law not
>>copyright law, at least here in Ger
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Joe Moore wrote:
JM>> The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
JM>> invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
JM>> conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
JM>> not want anybody to change that sect
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
KD>Well, consider the following: Invariant sections are only
KD>allowed to be material which does not talk about the "main" topic
KD>of the work. However, encyclopedias are books which
KD>(theoretically anyway) are about _everything_. All topics are
KD
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, John Galt wrote:
JG>>JK>On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JG>>JK>>According FDL, "You may not use technical measures to
JG>>JK>> obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
JG>&
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>What I was trying to say is: It does not matter at all how world is.
>Some legislations may use the word software for something, but it does
>not matter at all. And it does not matter which meaning we choose.
>(As it does not matter if all newspapers o
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MR>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MR>>Of course, you can claim that the very special definition of
MR>> "software" should and will be used for the sole purpose of the
MR>> interpretation of DFSG and Social Contra
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MR>Why do you consider these a replacement for articles 15-23
>> MR>instead of a supplement? Have I misunderstood article 69a(4)?
>> It is irrelevant. Even if articles 15-23 is
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
KD>Fedor Zuev wrote:
KD>>>Your definition seems to differ from standard usage.
>>
>> What is the standard usage?
>>
KD>I can't exactly define a "standard" usage, but in my experience most people
KD>
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
WV>Op wo 13-08-2003, om 14:20 schreef Sergey Spiridonov:
WV>> Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted
WV>> FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy.
WV>What if you'd want to create a custom Debian
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
BRL>* Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030812 22:56]:
BRL>> Because "everyting is software" declarations does not really
BRL>> serve for promotion of any freedom, but, contrary, only for stealing
BRL>> freedom ex
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
JK>On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JK>>According FDL, "You may not use technical measures to
JK>> obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
JK>> _you_ _make_ _or_
On Wed, 12 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
AD>Did you bother to read the Social Contract, the document we're talking
AD>about? It's one of Debian's most important documents, and its second
AD>half is one of Debian's many significant contributions to the open
AD>source/free software community.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MR>On 2003-08-13 15:26:46 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MR>>Articles 69c,69d completely redefine all conception of
MR>> exclusive rights (compare with articles 15-23 for "generic"
MR>> exclusive rights) - t
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Petrisor Marian wrote:
PM>What about a backup copy that you do for yourself, and for
PM>various reasons you encrypt it?
>> According FDL, "You may not use technical measures to
>>obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
>>_you_ _make_ _or_ _dis
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MR>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MR>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MR>> MR>I have now been given a link to the German copyright law at
MR>> MR>http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/index.html but I am very
M
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
KD>>But let it be:
KD>> ---
KD>>
KD>> If the package gets extra input information as a part of using it
KD>> _and_ a result substantially[*] varies, depending this input
KD>> information _and_ these variations at least partially controlled by
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
MS>> My suggestion:
MS>> Software "is a set of statements" primarily intended to perform
MS>> some operations on the some set of input information "in order to
MS>> bring about a certain result" with this information. Regardless
MS>> of the way it doe
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
AD>>> Oh, great, so maybe I'll finally have answers to my generic questions
AD>>> to
AD>>> FDL supporters: how a license which forbids to put the document on an
AD>>> encrypted filesystem can be considered free? How a license which
AD>>> forbids
AD>>
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Software "is a set of statements" primarily intended to
>> perform some operations on the some set of input information "in
>> order to bring about a certain result" with this information.
>> Regardless of the way it does so.
>>
>> Data "is a set of
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
BR>Establish first that the debian-legal team's current application
BR>of the term "software" to all binary digits that get shipped in
BR>Debian main is fallacious even if valid.
Not to say for everyone, but for me there is a very strong
reason
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MR>I have now been given a link to the German copyright law at
MR>http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/index.html but I am very
MR>slow at reading German, if anyone else wants to beat me to reading it.
http://www.copyrighter.ru/lite/germanapisp.h
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
JG>> Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JG>> human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a
JG>> program.
JG>> Programs consist of instructions primarily intended to be
JG>> machine-readable that either conta
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
JG>Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JG>human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a program.
JG>Programs consist of instructions primarily intended to be machine-readable
JG>that either contain machine languag
98 matches
Mail list logo
