Hi RMS,
On Montag 08 September 2003 18:09, Richard Stallman wrote:
> While nominally Debian GNU/Linux does not include the non-free
> software, the non-free software is distributed from the same
> server. We cannot recommend one without effectively
> recommending the other. Further, the distributi
Hi Edmund,
On Dienstag 03 Juni 2003 19:12, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > You have a similar but less severe problem if A is a
> > > high-precision digital recording (with lots of random
> > > noise in the low
Hi Henning,
On Dienstag 27 Mai 2003 00:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > * the right to publicly display the work (in its physical
> > form) (e.g. a painting),
>
> [...]
>
> > * (*NEW*) the right to ma
Hi Edmund,
On Dienstag 13 Mai 2003 11:54, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So the problem here is that the source code of sample data
> > is more sample data. These samples might again require their
> > sources, and so
Hi RMS,
On Mittwoch 28 Mai 2003 00:40, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> A political essay is (typically) written by certain
>>> persons to persuade the public of a certain position.
>>> If it is modified, it does not do its job. So it makes
>>> sense, socially, to say that these cannot be modified.
>
Hi,
On Sonntag 25 Mai 2003 01:19, Richard Stallman wrote:
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified,
> it does not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say
> that these cannot be modified.
Then, why are
Hi
On Freitag 23 Mai 2003 11:21, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
> IMHO, i believe that there are an urgent need for a library of
> free sound, music, samples, etc. to take as a base to ease the
> creation of free software which need sounds.
It is also urgently needed for the creation of free music tha
Hi folks,
On Mittwoch 07 Mai 2003 18:58, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > you should be able to do a
> > text representation of a FFT or something, I would've
> > thought. Long, and ugly, but editable as text,
>
> That's no better than a he
Hi Zack,
On Sonntag 20 April 2003 03:19, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I am not a Debian developer, but I am one of the upstream
> developers of a piece of software (GCC) that would be affected
> by this proposal, and so I would like to say that I
> wholeheartedly support it. I wrote a lot of the text
Hi Manoj,
On Friday 25 April 2003 10:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:57:36 +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and
> >non-free, for stuff th
Hi Steve,
On Saturday 26 April 2003 06:15, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Uwe
> Gruettmueller wrote:
> > I don't think that freely distributable documents should be
> > mixed with stuff which is not [freely distributable]
> Why
Hi Glenn,
On Friday 25 April 2003 05:00, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe
Gruettmueller wrote:
> > On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about
> > to be thrown out of main are at least as freely
> > distributable as
Hi Matthew and all,
On Thursday 24 April 2003 13:21, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I agree with what's expressed in the FAQ, but apart from the
> section on why we think software and documentation should be
> treated equally under the DFSG (quite a good argument there,
> BTW) there's nothing there abou
Hi Mark,
On Thursday 24 April 2003 19:37, Mark Rafn wrote:
> A few people have brought up the topic of Moral Rights, with
> which I am not very familiar. They sound like some sort of
> meta-copyright which an author cannot assign, and may not be
> able to grant permission over.
>
> Does anyone hav
Hi!
On Thursday 05 December 2002 14:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> and the law explicitly permits redistribution
> of a particular copy once it has been sold or given to someone
> with the permission of the author.
Same thing applies to the German Authors Rights Law.
Sloppy translation:
| §17 [...
Hi
On Monday 02 December 2002 21:04, Walter Landry wrote:
> Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi
> > Yes; I'm currently looking at that and the OpenIPCore
> > license.
> >
> > http://www.opencores.org/OIPC/OHGPL.shtml.
> >
> > Are these both comp
Hi!
On Saturday 16 November 2002 02:55, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/8.1/COPYRIGHT.yast
> >
> > This license made me install Debian.
>
> Why?
In order to get rid of YaST.
> According to some folks on debian-devel, it should have
> been a reason for stayin
Hi Marcello,
On Tuesday 12 November 2002 10:06, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'm seeking the opinion of -legal regarding an issue I've
> been discussing on another mailing list. It pertains the YAST
> license as found in:
>
> ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/8.1/COPYRIGHT.yast
This li
All standard disclaimers apply! I am not a lawyer. I am not a
Debian developer. etc.
Hi
On Thursday 31 October 2002 19:03, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > > Contrary to what people might think, not only can I
> >
Hi, Ali!
On Monday 07 October 2002 18:13, Ali Akcaagac wrote:
> a) somehow everyone has a slightly different understanding of
>'opensource' and the terms of 'free software'.
There are three definitions of these terms which people commonly
agree on:
* The "Free Software Definition" of the
Hi
On Thursday 13 June 2002 22:58, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:14:46PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 2) We don't want a music webcaster to take DFCL-licensed
> > > piece of music out of "the commons" because he runs the
>
Hi
On Friday 14 June 2002 04:39, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:36:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 05:58 , Branden Robinson
wrote:
> > > If you
> > >incorporate that work into a GPLed one, the endorsement
> > > terms would be "masked
IANAL
Hi
On Thursday 13 June 2002 00:07, Walter Landry wrote:
> How about adding a section 3d) to the GPL with something like
>
> d) Only distribute 100 or fewer copies in a 30 day time
> period.
If one licensee can distribute 100 copies each 30 days, not
bundled with its source code, 100
Hi
On Friday 14 June 2002 05:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Essentially what I am getting at is the fact that just
> > because a doc and a program are shipped in the same tarball,
> > does this really mean that you need to try to cover them
> > with the same license?
>
> If they're just distribut
Hi, Mikael!
On Monday, 22. April 2002 23:27, Mikael Hedin wrote:
> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry writes:
> > But this is all premature, let's see if the translator is
> > willing to follow the original author's copyright.
> [...]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT
>
Hi
On Friday, 19. April 2002 11:53, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:45:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille
wrote:
> > Unfortunately it may not be quite so free. I haven't checked
> > it in detail, but I'm told the only decent sound support
Hi
On Wednesday, 13. February 2002 22:37, Walter Landry wrote:
> [Excellent Analysis by Stephen Ryan omitted]
>
> This all begs the question, why does the FDL exist at all?
> The rationale given at
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html
>
> is that it will encourage commercial entities t
Hi, Thomas!
On Monday, 3. December 2001 23:05, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If you want to take a bunch of Debian packages and port them
> to windoze, feel free! All I ask is:
>
> 1) Don't call it GNU.
> 2) Don't call it Debian.
> 3) Don't use Debian resources for the effort.
Hmmm... as far as
is free and what is not?
On Monday, 3. December 2001 06:00, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:53:34AM +0100, Thomas Uwe
Gruettmueller wrote:
> > However, I don't think your proposal is sufficient: For
> > example, a manual that contains an invariant (and thus
Hi, Branden!
On Sunday, 2. December 2001 10:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:19:55AM +0100, Thomas Uwe
Gruettmueller wrote:
> > As I understand it, a package that makes it into [main]
> > complies to all points of the DFSG. However, your proposal
> >
Hi, Branden!
On Sunday, 2. December 2001 06:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In my opinion, "Non-Abhorrent Non-Free Software" is a cause
> best undertaken by a project other than Debian.
I did not mean that there is any non-abhorrent non-free software.
As I understand it, a package that makes it in
Hi Thomas!
On Sunday, 2. December 2001 04:05, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I thought there was general agreement that a proportional
> limit was better than a simple number. One disadvantage to a
> simple per-package limit is that you can defeat it by
> splitting something up into more packages.
Hi, Debian people!
I think that maybe manuals that only fail DFSG 2, 3 or 6 -- such
as the Emacs Manual -- should not be classified as "[non-free]",
but as something new, between [main] and [non-free], because,
although they are not entirely free, they are at least freely
redistributable by ev
Warning: I am not a lawyer.
Hi.
On Sunday, 23. September 2001 13:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.geocities.com/goldshroom2000/Trance_links.html
All the links point to copyrighted material. As I cannot find
any license, I assume it violates any point of the DFSG. As
there is no permis
Obligatory statement first: I am not a lawyer.
Hi!
I think I should post the entire "license", so that the problem
will be more clear...
http://www.teamone.de/selfhtml/taa.htm#a4
|
| Copyright
|
| This document is *freeware* in the meaning of the Software
| License Law¹. The rules in detail:
|
Hi
On Wednesday, 29. August 2001 20:00, Walter Landry wrote:
> However, I think Debian policy is to discourage
> the use of non-us for that purpose, since it was only really
> supposed to be for crypto stuff.
The stuff in non-us can be used inside and outside the US. It
only mustn't be exported
(Sorry, Edmund. I just pressed REPLY, but did not check the
address :o( ...)
Hi.
On Saturday, 25. August 2001 10:01, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Please note that I am not a lawyer and I am not speaking on
> behalf of Debian.
Hi
When I understand the stuff on http://cdimages.debian.org
correctly, Debian suggests to sell also incomplete sets of the
official CDs, e.g. only Binary-1. If it is really possible to
sell Binary-only-CDs, how does it relate to the GPL??? And does
this rule only apply to the official CDs or
Hi
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001, LinuxLand / Hans-Jörg Ehren wrote:
> That copyright only reflects to packaging, artwork etc. The content
> ist still free software, no question.
That sounds OK.
> > Another strange thing is the impressum in the manual shipped with
> > the CDs, saying:
> >
> > The co
Hi, folks!
This is not really Debian related, but nevertheless, please have a
look at the license draft below.
Word explaination:
A tracker is a raster sequencer program with a built-in
sample-based synthesizer, or the user of such a program.
A sample is a digital sound recording.
Th
Hi, debian legal list!
In these days, there was a discussion about free fonts on this
list, so I guess this fits here:
I would like to start a free music project, and therefore maybe
adopt the DFSG as a point to start from. The only problem I see
is that in some cases, the enforcement of source
Hi
On Don, 21 Dez 2000, Eric Sherrill wrote:
> Clause 5. fails DFSG 5.
Right. Also clause 10
"By clicking on the "ACCEPT" button where indicated, or by
installing, copying or otherwise using(!) the Software, Licensee
agrees(!) to be bound by the terms and conditions of this License
Hi
On Mit, 20 Dez 2000, John Galt wrote:
> There is one more thing to consider. That's the use of common
> sense. Something for an 8-bit Atari that is copyright 1989?! The
> 8-bit Ataris were long out of production in 1989.
I remember that there were Atari XEs with an ST-like design in stores
On Fre, 15 Dez 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, PHYSICAL LAW
> (INLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO OHM'S LAW, SPECIAL RELATIVITY,
> GENERAL RELATIVITY AND SOD'S LAW), ORDINARY LOGIC WITH OR WITHOUT
That would be invalid because the theory of relati
Hi, debian-legal list!
Some months ago, I have bought a Debian distribution from a German
company called LinuxLand. Now I've noticed some strange things about
it:
The six official CDs are labelled as suggested by Debian, however,
there is a strange third line:
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 r0 >>
45 matches
Mail list logo
