Michael K. Edwards said:
> On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about
>> the game engine.
>
> We're talking about a theory of derivative work that doesn't require
> literal copying. In the game context, that would be closer
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For this reason, Debian should reject choice of venue clauses as non-free.
At best, they give an underdog copyright holder a small advantage while
enforcing his rights, but at worst they give a hostile copyright holder a
large advant
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
>> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is
>> that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
>> s
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred
>> form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need
>> to distribute both to comply with the GPL.
>
> N
Glenn Maynard wrote:
A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving
the program in C. The Pascal code may be useful for reference, but
it i
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Consider the Malicious Software Corporation (MSC). Consider work X by
author Joe. MSC holds patent A covering X and patent B covering something
else. Valiant Defender (VD) holds patent C covering X.
Normally, MSC can sue any user of X for infringing patent A. With the
My suggestions are inline. To me, this looks like it is intended as a
free license. It may not pass the "tentacles of evil" test since it is
not precisely worded, but a statement by the copyright holder that the
free interpretation applies is sufficent to cover this issue.
On Wed, Aug 18, 20
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself
in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and
powerfull have the right to get their licence re
Sven Luther wrote:
But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of
your QPLed work, you have the same right as he has, don't you ?
To distribute the modified (combined) version of your QPL'd work under a
proprietaty license?
In other words, if I submit a patch to
I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary of
threads for this week.
It's exactly the sort of thing that needs to be highlighted. It
demonstrates how debian-legal works with upstream to find ways to make
their software DFSG-Free.
It's also nice to see that Sleepyca
Sven Luther said:
>
> No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which
> is
> why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception.
>
> The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified though by Trolltech, so
> it
> is less problematic.
Ok, one "apt-get insta
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Brian M Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management,
and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights
software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free
s
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
I would only offer one small piece of feedback, and that is that the
license for "The Compiler" is described as the QPL version 1.0, whil
Josh Triplett wrote:
As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an
issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to
debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want
single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational
discussion.
> On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat
>> Test"
>> or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
>> holder
>> does not get to make up his or her own laws?
The Ideocrat Test? Or per
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Lex Spoon wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
>>> the licensor, the license can't be free.
> [...]
>> More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose
>> it sa
Michael Poole wrote:
> See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
> that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
> of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
> mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copyrightable) transfor
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
in the output from --version, etc.
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Has metafont been put under the GPL? I
I receive software with a license, I have no reason to
>> >act as if there were some other licensing terms which I haven't been
>> >told about.
>> >
>> >[If that doesn't make sense to you, re-read what you wrote.]
>
>> This did not make sense to me.
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
>> in the output from --version, etc.
>
> Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that
>
Raul Miller wrote:
>> >> I said: You can modify gcc, combining it with metafont (as long as
>> >> you
>> >> don't eliminate 2,c announcements -- which AFAIR gcc does not
>> >> have);
>> >
>> > If you can put appropriate copyright notices on it, sure. I'm not
>> > sure how you're going to so this
Raul Miller wrote:
(Deep attributions snipped in previous messages)
>> >>You can combine gcc and metafont and make a new compiler; you can
>> >>even make a script that combines them, apply some patch to the
>> >>combination, and compiles the result to get to your invention; what
>> >>you can't do i
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:05:47PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> (Note: The license blurb is actually required to be maintained by
>> copyright law, not by the license itself.)
>
> The license itself also explicitly states this as a requirement.
Would you like to cite where in
Raul Miller wrote
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> This is allowed by the GPL and required to be allowed by the DFSG, of
>> course, as long as the resulting gcc binary can be distributed under
>> the terms of the GPL. The GPL doesn't care what kinds of changes yo
Raul Miller Wrote
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
>
> How so?
>
> [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
So
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> What do you think of the wording I suggested replacing #6 with?
> Reproduced:
>
>
> 6. No Discrimination Against Types of Use
>
> The license must not restrict anyone from using the work for any
> purpose. For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in
>
Branden Robinson wrote:
> As I said in my mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz
> >Technologies
> > shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
> > the sale, use or other dealings in this Softwa
Henning Makholm said:
> D. When you volunteer to summarize, select a random 6-digit integer
>as a "priority" and write it in your email. If several people
>volunteer without seeing each other volunteering, the one with the
>highest number wins the responsibility. (This will break the ti
Wesley W. Terpstra said:
> So, what does that mean for a package where the copyright holder
> distributes the package with an extra clause and GPL? Can I
> redistribute it at all?
>
> PS. Please CC me on replies as I am not subscribed.
IANAL, IANADD, IJRD-L.
The last time this conversation came u
Arnoud Engelfriet said:
> 35 US Code 271, section (c).
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html
>
> Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or
> imports into the United States a component of a patented
> machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material
> or a
Anthony DeRobertis said:
> The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
> copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
> what they'd do then.
I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that "The Work"
described in sections 1 and 2 is the object
Steve Langasek said:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:48:12PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=24>>> > Thanks. I
think the new S5 looks like this:
>
>> > 5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against an
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Jennifer Machovec, who's drafting the license, posted a new
>> version to license@apache.org on November 13. You can read it at
>>
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=24>
> Thanks. I think the new S5 l
Andrew Suffield said:
> Finally, it is totally unacceptable to tie this into a software
> copyright license, such that accepting the license affects the status
> of your own patents. That's non-free however you look at it.
This made me think of an analogy:
Here's a bit from a hypothetical softwar
MJ Ray said:
> On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
>> package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright
>> holder, she distributes them together. Nobody else can redistribut
Anthony DeRobertis said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:47, Joe Moore wrote:
>
>> Many technical books come with a CD of examples from the book, or
>> similar material. A copy of the source could easily be distributed on
>> that CD.*
>>
>> * The book could not l
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> The GNU GPL is somewhat awkward for print distribution: it requires
> either a CD of source in the back or an onerous offer valid for three
> years. The best alternative I can consider is to distribute the book
> under the GPL, with the special exception that printed copie
here.
The only thing that's required is the notice that it may be distributed, not
any identification of who the copyright holder is.
Under the Berne convention, copyright applies whether there is a proper
"copyright notice" (i.e. "Copyright &copr; 2003 Joe Moore. All Righ
Joe Moore said:
> Would emacs20_20.7-13.1_i386.deb fit the definition of "Modified
> Version" above? It is clearly a copyrightable work, and it contains
> the Document (usr/share/emacs/20.7/etc/GNU for example) copied
> verbatim.
Sorry, the correct example is the GNU Emacs
Peter S Galbraith said:
> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From section 1 of the GFDL:
>> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work
>> containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied
>> verbatim, or with modificat
>From section 1 of the GFDL:
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work
containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied
verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into
another language.
Would emacs20_20.7-13.1_i386.deb fit the definition of "Modified V
Mathieu Roy said:
> But what happens when the manifesto is included in a GFDLed manual,
> which clearly allows translation, as long as the original text is
> provided?
You have an example of a dual-licensed work.
You can distribute the manifesto under the "No modification" license, or at
your opt
Branden Robinson said:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:19:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I'd appreciate a re-analysis of the following. As an interested party
> I will sit it out if I can, and act upon the consensus of the
> participants in the discussion.
Here's my analysis. IANADD, IANAL.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
> the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy
> GFDL'd manuals and then do this.
Why? because you're inhibiting the later recipient's ability to read them?
Hmm.. within the te
Peter S Galbraith said:
> As I read it, you can have the text of the FDGL
> as a separate file in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, it has to be
> included in the derived work itself.
I'm assuming you left out the 't from "can" above, and you are saying that
you can't just refer to /usr/share/doc/
Richard Stallman said:
>But there is a difference between the GPL-required text:
>...
>
>And the GFDL-required text:
>
> They are different, but neither of them is really short, so I think the
> practical consequences are more or less the same.
To use one page of the GPL-licensed work
Mathieu Roy said:
> You last phrase is just like if you were saying: the GPL force me to
> distribute the source code, it is a restriction on how I can use and
> transform the source code, rendering the GPL non-free.
Unless I am mistaken, you can take GPLd code, compile it with a non-free
compiler
Richard Stallman said:
> this problem doesn't really depend on invariant sections at all. The
> same would be true for a GPL-covered manual, because you can't use
> snippets without a copy of the GPL (unless they are fair use).
But there is a difference between the GPL-required text:
> Portio
Mathieu Roy said:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> There is also the definition of transparent forms. I can't distribute
>> GFDL'd documents I write in Openoffice or LyX.
>
> The fact that you cannot write GFDLed document with OpenOffice or LyX
> (which are not at all in a preferr
Anthony DeRobertis said:
> The GPL prohibits us from distributing Debian on orange peels or
> probably even punch cards, because that's not "on a medium customarily
> used for software interchange."
The medium restriction you note refers only to the source code. We can
distribute Debian on orange
Rick Moen said:
> Under common law (and extensions such as the Uniform Commercial Code),
> the required contract element of acceptance entails _communication_ of
> that acceptance to the offeror. Obviously, C's acceptance per that
> framework is legally problematic.
>
> (Informally, one speaks of
Barak Pearlmutter said:
> I see a few practical problems with the GFDL:
>
> - incompatibility with the GPL
To expand on this a bit, this means that documents that are derived from
GPLd source (by extracting info from comments, or analysing the code itself)
are inconsistantly licensed. The part of
Branden Robinson said:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 02:57:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Is it enough to write on the CD pocket or something such instruction
>> on getting the sources from any debian mirror, or something such, and
>> say that the modified sources are on CD #2 or something such.
>
>
Steve Langasek said:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> Including the GPL and the DFSG?
>> Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
>
> "Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please
> give credit to the Debian project if you do."
> http://www.
Mathieu Roy said:
> The same goes from the Ancient tragedies. But it's already perfectly
> possible to make a remake of any book, story or movie.
The ancient tragedies are not protected by copyright.
Try making a "remake" of the Harry Potter books, and see how long it takes
to be sued. Try writi
Branden Robinson said:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
>> This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
>> Debian Manual at
>> All well and good, so far. Appendix H of the Manual, in
>>
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ap-c
David B Harris said:
> On 28 Aug 2003 03:22:47 +0100
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -(which makes passes at compilers) written
>> +(which makes passes at compilers) written
>
> I agree that this is an ambiguous case; one side would want to convince
> the judge that the user was
IANAL, TINLA. Consult with a professional familiar with your situation.
Scott James Remnant said:
> 4. Request the patch from the revision containing the licence change to
> the HEAD.
>
> a. This patch should not include any licence changes.
This patch is derived from the work under the new l
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> Indeed, I started with "documentation" and switched to "text" as more
> general; it's hard to keep the sentence structure so close using the
> word "work." "Content" sounds good, so far.
Only trouble I have with "Content" is that is sounds like the document
formatting doe
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License,
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, not because of mere existence
>>> of such code.
>
>>How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangma
Richard Braakman said:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well
>> to programs as it does to manuals!
>>
>> Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
>> allowed 'off-topic
Joerg Wendland said:
> The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
> invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
> conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
> not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it th
Fedor Zuev said:
> For example GFDL, unlike any free software licences,
> specifically grant to user the rights for publicly display licenced
> work and right to translate it. For the software, these rights not
> exist as separate exclusive rights, or almost useless. But for the
> documentati
Josselin Mouette said:
> Le mer 13/08/2003 à 14:20, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit :
>> Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell
>> encrypted FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his
>> copy.
>
> That was probably the intention, but the wording makes it unclear.
The debate on the distinction between software, documentation, and data, and
the required freeness of each (and a reference to Venn diagrams in one
thread) has inspired me to attempt to diagram the relationships being
discussed. Attached is a very simple xfig diagram of what I see.
The diagram is
Nathanael Nerode said:
> "Adapt it to your needs" is violated by the FDL "Invariant Section"
> requirements. Notably, the 'embedded' and 'reference card' examples
> apply (although RMS espoused a interesting theory involving "multiple
> volumes").
A (IMHO) stronger example would be creating a "Ho
Joe Wreschnig said:
> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 16:27, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> I have to add a new section to my FDL FAQ. Here's a draft version:
>
> Excellent job; you might want to consider adding how the GFDL *is*
> about misrepresentation - If someone adds an invariant section contrary
> to you
Joe Wreschnig said:
> On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 12:55, Joe Moore wrote:
>> > You can extract the BSD-licensed code from the proprietary code, and
>> > use only it. There's no requirement in the BSD-licensed code that
>> > you must distribute proprietary code that
Brian T. Sniffen said:
>
> That's not true. The BSD license is granted to all third parties, so
> if I find a section of some proprietary code I know was written by UCB,
> I can just take that section. The GFDL is a license only to the
> recipient, so in order to take a free section from an older
Joe Wreschnig said:
> On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 05:46, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Joe Wreschnig said:
>> > On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:37, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> How is that harder with the FDL "History" section than with the
>> >> "clearly marked" B
Joe Wreschnig said:
> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:37, Joe Moore wrote:
>> How is that harder with the FDL "History" section than with the
>> "clearly marked" BSD code, or the GPL-required changelog?
>
> The document trail in "History" may not exist a
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Joe Wreschnig said:
>>> If someone adds proprietary code to BSD-licensed code, however, you
>>> can later extract the free code (assuming you have access to the code
>>> of t
Joe Wreschnig said:
> If someone adds proprietary code to BSD-licensed code, however, you can
> later extract the free code (assuming you have access to the code of
> the now-proprietary program), and use it in something else. Once
> proprietary (invariant) sections are added to something under the
John Goerzen said:
> Problem #2: Double Standards
>
> We have, and continue to, allow information to be distributed with
> software under even more strict terms than the FDL.
The entire debate revolves around the question of "will [we]* continue to
allow information to be distributed under non-fre
Robert Millan said:
> This is what the DMCA reads:
>
> "(2) No person shall [...] import, [...] any technology, product, service,
> device, component or part thereof,
[ like Drip+libdvdread+libdvdcss ]
>
> Anyway I find this discussion much useless, since the DMCA can't be
> applied to non-us.
n
Henning Makholm said:
> [1] Perhaps then there should also be a follow-up question along the
> lines of
>
> Q. How can I find out if there are known doubts about the freedom of
> a particular package in Debian but for some reason they have not
> yet led to it being removed from the archive
Florian Weimer said:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You can make a manpage, but you must
>> have to include inside the manpage
> Actually, it's sufficient to refer to this information in the SEE ALSO
> section of the manpage, so that elaborateness of the GFDL doesn't
> interfere wit
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Modifying in an interesting and useful way like running "strip" on the
>> binary?
>> I don't think the GPL can be subverted so easily:
>
> Say, to change a string co
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> It seems to me that if you are right, then there is no way to enforce
> the GPL: because then someone could simply modify the object file in
> some interesting and useful way (say, to change a string constant,
> usually pretty easy), and then claim that the C code isn't
Nick Phillips said:
> In the situation where I take a simple GPL'd C program, compile it to
> assembler, then hand-optimise the assembler before altering the code,
> initially in small ways, eventually completely re-writing the whole
> thing, adding huge amounts of new functionality, removing the i
Thomas Hood said:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Finally, there is a very lossy conversion which must be Free,
>> and that is linguistic translation.
>
> Nope. If you are distributing the binary with English UI then
> I don't want t
J.D. Hood said:
> I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for
> making modifications' be information-theoretical.
>
> When source code is compiled into binary code there is a
> loss of information, as indicated by the fact that you
> cannot get the original source back, given only the bina
Greg Pomerantz said:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
>> last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form.
>> Anyone downstream from that person would have to keep the "source" in
>> that form and t
Nicolas Kratz said:
> Hmmm... Wouldn't distributing the modified Free Work, even if it's only
> distributed to "B", require "A" to make available the modified Free
> Work to third parties? Then one could start from there, and utterly
> disregard "B"s obfuscated version.
>
> I'm pretty sure that is
Henning Makholm said:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns
>
>> > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
>> allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for
>> him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still
>> distribute the unmidified manuals with the Invar
Henning Makholm said:
> Perhaps the O.A.C. ought to be our next target, but let us fight one
> battle at a time.
EXPN O.A.C.?
(snip)
> While we should definitely include the hijacking example, some care
> should be exercised in phrasing an explanation of what we think it
> proves. In particular i
Frank Mittelbach said:
> Jeff Licquia writes in reply to Joe Moore:
> > On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 13:45, Joe Moore wrote:
> > > > 10. The Work, or any Derived Work, may be distributed under a
> different license, as long as that license honors the conditio
Jeff Licquia said:
> I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License
> (LPPL) below.
>
> 10. The Work, or any Derived Work, may be distributed under a
> different license, as long as that license honors the conditions in
> Clause 7a, above.
This clause confuses me.
Is th
Steve Langasek said:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> The argument is that "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" is a GPL'd program, and this
>> java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.
>
>> Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking t
Mark Rafn said:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> So the requirement here is that if the RPC service is part
>> of the source code, you MUST ship the server, or not ship anything at
>> all.
>
> Huh? I'm missing that paragraph in my copy of GPLv2. You can't ship
> the server and the
Jeremy Hankins said:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Jeremy Hankins said:
>
>>> Take this to the logical extreme where everybody starts doing this
>>> and every Free program has several ASP versions, and you have the ASP
>>> n
Jeremy Hankins said:
> Imagine a world with omnipresent connectivity, and a lot of copylefted
> software. Someone decides that they could make the browser into a
> platform (remember Netscape & the MS antitrust trial). So they take
> commonly available Free software packages and stick them behind
Anthony Towns said:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:58:54PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
>> > "The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on
>> a machine where a few other people could log in and access them in
>> itself constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold
>
Barak Pearlmutter said:
> http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Perhaps a bit of clarification on the desert island test:
Are there really two desert island tests?
1) Person is stranded with a laptop* and a Software CD set (source and
binaries) Can she make modifications/improvements to
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
>> Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of
>> information, same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into
>> the functionality of the code itself. If one of your customers is a
>> competitor, or a competitor buys ou
Branden Robinson said:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Nick Phillips said:
>> > I don't think that losslessness is the right criterion, rather
>> something connected to the meaning of the source and the
>> achievability of the sou
Steve Langasek said:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> I think the key there is _useful_ source. Obfuscated forms that can
>> not be turned back into useful source should not be allowed. Encypted
>> forms (if the recipient doesn't have
Barak Pearlmutter said:
> Here is a rough outline of which I think it could look like:
> Q: How do you do this?
Perhaps:
Q: How do you determine if a license is DFSG-Free?
(There isn't much context to figure out what "this" is)
>
> A: the process involves human judgment. The DFSG is an attempt
Nick Phillips said:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:06:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> If it's lossy, it can't be transformation; instead it is modfication.
>
> Basically the forms can be judged according to their purpose. The source
> form is the preferred form for making modifications. The ob
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
