Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
The new version:
| By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or
| derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with Request
| Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you are the
| copyright holder for those contribut
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed one
format of images, and there were no images out there in that format, would you
want to see that in Debian? What if there were images in that format, but
in order to get them you'd have to break copyrig
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall
into their own class of software because they rely on what is generally
commercial, non-free (and honestly, quite probably illegal) software in
order to run, which is why they fall into contrib.
I don'
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> We must look at the entire freeness of a work, not just the copyright
> freeness.
I think this is fine advice.
The Apple Public Source License (APSL) has a clause that makes licensees
choose between continuing to be an APSL licensee and allowing Apple to
infringe on t
Don Armstrong wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the vera fonts are not available from gnome's
> ftp site yet. [Feel free to provide linkage to demonstrate otherwise.]
See http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ for the link to the following file.
$ wget --spider --server-response
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME
Joe Drew wrote:
> Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which
> Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's involvement is the
> reason these fonts are free, not the other way around.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying in exchange for
distributing th
Joe Drew wrote:
> Probably because Bitstream refuse to operate under any model but this
> one (i.e., to not let substandard fonts get used as the official ones),
> and they're more interested in getting things done than in blue-sky
> idealism?
So you don't really know, you're just guessing? Stick
Michael Fedrowitz wrote:
> This is the draft license for the final version: [...]
I understand the community is anxious to get their hands on copies of these
fonts, but let's not forget that the license for the final version has not
been released. There is nothing stopping Bitstream from releasin
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available.
> The current "beta-test" license is clearly non-free [...]
Why is GNOME getting involved with non-free software at all? Why not just
get involved when Bitstream is ready to distribute Free Software font
Richard Stallman wrote:
> I guess so...but are we really able to do anything with it that
> we can't do without it?
I can't see any program Helix is working on that is unique and attractive
for the Free Software community.
We can play Ogg Vorbis data with Free Software. We will probably continue
Richard Stallman wrote:
> The Creative Commons licenses are not supposed to be used for software.
> Doesn't the Creative Commons site say so? It ought to.
http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3321 makes it clear the Creative
Commons does not intend to get involved with software licensing. Th
Don Armstrong wrote:
> As a parting note, it is troubling that they call a license version
> 1.0, and then have a revision date associated with it. The RPSL should
> really be refered to as RPSL version 1.0 as of 10/28/2002 or some
> such. [Or they should incrememnt the version numbers when they ch
You wrote:
> This question still remains: Can I listen and watch to RealAudio- and
> RealVideo-files with completely free software, if I install only
> RPSL-licenced software from Helix DNA?
There was a debian-legal thread about this already (see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-le
Perhaps I was less than clear before so I'll restate my intention.
I found the entire article interesting because it discusses the additional
reliability that comes with consideration and manifesting assent to an
agreement. Many of us in the Free Software community do a lot of work where
(accordi
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> A lot of things would break if licences were arbitrarily revocable. I
> haven't heard of it happening in practice, and I'm not sure the
> "consideration" argument from contract law has any validity.
Give http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html a read. It wa
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> If I grab a random piece of GPL software today and start hacking and tomorrow
> the author changes the license the copy I have does not change. This is what
> allows projects to fork.
I think what allows GNU GPL-covered programs to be forked is that the GPL
grants l
Mark Rafn wrote:
> It [Perl's copyright holders] can't retroactively change licenses.
> There will always be a free Perl.
It is my understanding that licensees (generally) haven't been given any
consideration in exchange for the software, so a license can be revoked by
the licensor at any time. I
Charles Bloom (via Drew Scott Daniels) wrote:
> How about if I add this term at the top :
>
> 0. The software may be used or distributed according to the terms of
> the GPL (GNU Public License) at the distributor's option.
> If you do not wish to adhere to the terms of the GPL, y
/alessandro wrote:
> The problem here is that no alternatives are suggested.
Yes, specificity is the recommended alternative. The page
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty)
says:
"To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or
write
You wrote:
> Okay, I'm going to a pull an RMS and plead for a change in our
> collective use of certain terms.
>
> If you share either of these perspectives, then you might also wish to
> help restore sanity to modern discussions of intellectual property law by
> not referring to allegedly infri
Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> * All the material in this file is subject to the Gnu license
> version 2.
I think this is ambiguous. Both the GNU GPL or the GNU LGPL have a version
2 revision; the currently in-use and well-known GNU GPL and an older release
of the GNU LGPL as the FSF tells us:
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Any other opinions on the above license from my fellow debian-legal geeks?
I have two points to raise.
The license under consideration contains the following language:
> Use, copying, modification, merging, publishing, distribution
> and/or sale of this software, source
Auke Jilderda wrote:
> although[sic] there is always some discussion about terminology [1], it is
> actually fairly straightforward. Open Source is about four basic
> freedoms: *Access* to source code and the freedom to *use*, *modify*,
> and *redistribute* it. Anything less does not qualify as Op
David Given wrote:
> Doesn't this make timidity-patches non-free? In fact, surely it's not
> distributable at all?
>
> Someone please prove me wrong...
You are correct. The default for copyright is not to be able to distribute
copies at all and not to be able to modify the work amongst other thi
In addition to David Given's warning, which I agree with and I find reason
enough to not consider eawpats DFSG-free, I add the following.
Andrew Suffield quoted the license for eawpats:
> So, basicly[sic] you can not use the analog drums or the pistol files in any
> commercial work. This is out o
All spelling and capitalization in context in the license quotes below.
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> I've been searching for public domain fonts, and there are several sites
> that I've found. Some of them contain non-free fonts as well, but the
> public domain ones are clearly marked.
I'm not sure
Michael Cardenas wrote:
> Please review the license below and let me know if it meets the
> dfsg. I think it does, but I'm unsure of this clause:
>
> "3] A modified font can be included in any non-profit and for-profit
>software package as long as it's done free of charge with the
>rules a
On 01 Apr 2002 23:18:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Let's give it a week to see if you get a response from your letter.
Later, I replied:
> It's been a little over a week now. Did I miss the comment summary? I
> didn't notice any on debian-legal.
I'd appreciate it if someone would send
On 01 Apr 2002 23:18:58 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Let's give it a week to see if you get a response from your letter.
It's been a little over a week now. Did I miss the comment summary? I
didn't notice any on debian-legal.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
I inadvertantly posted this to the newsgroup linux.debian.legal not knowing
the gateway between the debian-legal mailing list and linux.debian.legal is
unidirectional (mailing list -> newsgroup). My apologies for those of you
who read linux.debian.legal and see this twice.
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Anyway I don't care about this. These are O'Reilly's problems.
Aren't they every free documentation user's problem? It seems unwise to me
to encourage users to modify and/or republish or redistribute something
covered by an unclear license by accepting it into Debian.
31 matches
Mail list logo
