On 7 Dec 99, at 23:10, Richard Makin wrote:
> It's an interesting situation, because in countries like Poland you are
> explicitly granted with the right to deasemble the program, even if ELA
> states the opposite - the Polish law overrules it.
I am a Czech lawyer (Czech republic is neighbor to P
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:56:31AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
>
> > I'd just like to add my two cents (they're rather big...perhaps
> > they're two dollars?) to this little discussion.
>
> > [342 line rant deleted]
>
> i think you exaggerate just a little :
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 10:20:05PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:56:31AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
>
> > I'd just like to add my two cents (they're rather big...perhaps
> > they're two dollars?) to this little discussion.
>
> > [342 line rant deleted]
>
> i think you exagg
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 08:23:35PM -0600, Philip Thiem wrote:
> My 2 cents:
>
> If you want it easier for newibes or you want a nice GUI. Consider the
> following
This is very wrong to think that what all newbies want is GUI for everything.
They want browser, they want word processor, they want s
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:56:31AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> I'd just like to add my two cents (they're rather big...perhaps
> they're two dollars?) to this little discussion.
> [342 line rant deleted]
i think you exaggerate just a little :)
some points that need to be made in response (in random
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 02:37:35AM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> 2. Debian's packages quality is very inequal. We cant force Debian to
> make Quality Standards, and if maintainer of some package dont think
> this is a bug, we can do nothing.
you've got to be joking!
one of the best things
My 2 cents:
If you want it easier for newibes or you want a nice GUI. Consider the
following
1.) Find people argee about having newbie utils and have time. Debian may
be hard,
but I am certain that most of the people the work on it have lives and
work as
much as they can you need more p
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 09:50:43AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I have already made a little (ok, very little) effort in this way,
> > and Ive sent patches to xearth 1.1 so the future version of xearth
> > may be finaly free (+jpeg, +png, -gif)
>
> You can read gifs freely. Writing them is cla
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 12:56:58PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I thought rather about a set of tools that put together will make
> > a web browser. This will be :
> >
> > That sounds like the Unix design approach. I tend to think th
> I have already made a little (ok, very little) effort in this way,
> and Ive sent patches to xearth 1.1 so the future version of xearth
> may be finaly free (+jpeg, +png, -gif)
You can read gifs freely. Writing them is claimed to violate a patent
which is held by two seperate companies (an impo
On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 02:52:40AM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > If copyright law does not consider "combining with CORBA" to make a
> > single combined work, then a copyright-based license cannot
> > validly contain this criterion.
>
> You may license what end-user will do with the code h
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I don't think we have to evaluate Linux _relative_to_windows_ when we talk
> about user-friendliness. It is sufficient to look at Linux and realize that
> there is much that could be improved and would make the naive' user's life
> easier witho
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> [Do we really have to spam everyone like this? Does everyone
> interested read the lists?]
I fear that the free software movement is doomed if people don't carefully
consider the things which I've brought up. Don't shoot the messenger.
> There seems to
Folks,
I don't think we have to evaluate Linux _relative_to_windows_ when we talk
about user-friendliness. It is sufficient to look at Linux and realize that
there is much that could be improved and would make the naive' user's life
easier without making life more difficult for the rest of us.
[Do we really have to spam everyone like this? Does everyone
interested read the lists?]
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:56:51AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 05, 1999 at 09:13:17AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > What does it mean to ma
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 03:34:22PM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> I think that FUD is deserved, [...]
I'm sure Microsoft think the FUD they spread against Linux is deserved too.
After all, those little upstarts are taking well deserved money away from
all the hardworking people at Microsoft. And that's h
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 12:56:58PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I thought rather about a set of tools that put together will make
> a web browser. This will be :
>
> That sounds like the Unix design approach. I tend to think that this
> approach would be more work, and would result in
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 99-12-05 at 20:46 Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 10:18:33PM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
>> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>> >
>> > Are licenses where reverse engeneering is prohibiten invalid ?
>>
>> Yes, because reverse-engineeri
Caspian wrote:
> In most cases, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that those who "buy" modern
> commercial GNU/Linux dists (which are often laced with tons of non-free
> code, usually-- as in the case of Red Hat-- completely unsegregated from
> free code, and often part of the base system)
99.9% FUD. R
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Caspian wrote:
> > In most cases, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that those who "buy" modern
> > commercial GNU/Linux dists (which are often laced with tons of non-free
> > code, usually-- as in the case of Red Hat-- completely unsegregated from
> > free code,
I thought rather about a set of tools that put together will make
a web browser. This will be :
That sounds like the Unix design approach. I tend to think that this
approach would be more work, and would result in something not as easy
to use.
Part I dont know how will be done is jav
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:41:47AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> I think that this is an idea whose time has really come-- to make a 100%
> (TOTALLY) free distro _as good as the commercial/proprietaryish ones for
> "end users"_ and suitable for heavy use by true geeks as well. This is a
> project that I'
On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 08:33:14PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The highest priority task I see now is a web-browser deserving its name.
>
> I agree. What do people think of the W3C's browser as a starting point?
I thought rather about a set of tools that put together will make
a web bro
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:09:45AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> An example case would be the patent on the MP3 compression algorithm. If
> there is only one way to create an MP3 stream, then there's no way around
> it. If, however, there is another way to create an "MP3" that does not
> use the p
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 1999 at 09:13:17AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > What does it mean to make a new GNU/Linux distro that is more
> > user-friendly and entirely free? How would it differ from Debian?
> > It seems to me it would differ in two ways
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 10:18:33PM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> > Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > >
> > > Are licenses where reverse engeneering is prohibiten invalid ?
> >
> > Yes, because reverse-engineering is strictly legal. Yes, even in the
> > USA.
>
> And do
On Sun, Dec 05, 1999 at 09:13:17AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> What does it mean to make a new GNU/Linux distro that is more
> user-friendly and entirely free? How would it differ from Debian?
> It seems to me it would differ in two ways:
>
> 1. It is entirely free. You could achieve this s
On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 10:18:33PM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> >
> > Are licenses where reverse engeneering is prohibiten invalid ?
>
> Yes, because reverse-engineering is strictly legal. Yes, even in the USA.
And does it make the whole license void ?
part of lice
You may license what end-user will do with the code however you want.
I think you have been misinformed. This cannot legally be done in the
US under copyright law (except, since one year ago, in programs with
license managers whose source is not available).
If you could do impose such restri
What does it mean to make a new GNU/Linux distro that is more
user-friendly and entirely free? How would it differ from Debian?
It seems to me it would differ in two ways:
1. It is entirely free. You could achieve this starting with Debian
by eliminating the non-free and contrib categories (the
On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 09:08:21PM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 03:29:29AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> > > I'm a crack Perl and PHP hacker. I can do the various things on the Web
> > > that are necessary. I can also host the domai
The highest priority task I see now is a web-browser deserving its name.
I agree. What do people think of the W3C's browser as a starting point?
On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 03:29:29AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> > I'm a crack Perl and PHP hacker. I can do the various things on the Web
> > that are necessary. I can also host the domain if necessary. :)
>
> As perl hacker you should make free replace
On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 03:29:29AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> I'm a crack Perl and PHP hacker. I can do the various things on the Web
> that are necessary. I can also host the domain if necessary. :)
As perl hacker you should make free replacements of all these
little non-free tools that still exists
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> I like it !
> OK !
>
> First thread :
> I started to make debian more free
> I made today wwwtable-compatibile program (freetable) so
> one program less will be in non-free.
> Does anyone want to try it ?
> Its perl, 6kB, GPL, 90%-wwwtable-compatib
Hi,
>>"Tomasz" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tomasz> And that is why I made dfsg changing proposal and reported
Tomasz> policy wishlist bug But nobody's interested
Possibly because the policy list is the wrong forum for this
proposal. Any such effort needs involve
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 06:21:54PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> you can not sublicense, mix with non-free code neither by libs nor corba
>
> If copyright does consider this a single combined work,
> then the GPL itself has this consequence.
>
> If copyright law does not consider "combinin
On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 02:40:28AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> you have to include the note `This distro is partially made of free
> >> software' in all ads of distros mixed from either free and non-free code
>
> > Since the required sentenc
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> you have to include the note `This distro is partially made of free
>> software' in all ads of distros mixed from either free and non-free code
> Since the required sentence does not contain the author's name, this
> does not cause the same practica
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> So, why is it that they can not distribute the software to minors but _can_
> accept software from minors and redistribute it?
Because their hypocrites. Because they don't understand the law. Because
they understand the law better tha
you can not sublicense, mix with non-free code neither by libs nor corba
If copyright does consider this a single combined work,
then the GPL itself has this consequence.
If copyright law does not consider "combining with CORBA" to make a
single combined work, then a copyright-based license c
I like it !
OK !
First thread :
I started to make debian more free
I made today wwwtable-compatibile program (freetable) so
one program less will be in non-free.
Does anyone want to try it ?
Its perl, 6kB, GPL, 90%-wwwtable-compatibile, and when it will be
able to embed one table into other we can
From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Then how come the title of this thread?
That's how the thread started.
If they believe so strongly that these licenses would be prohibited as
illegal contracts with minors, then for every piece of IP in Debian that
is written by minors, they have no rig
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
> > you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
> > have to distribute to anyone.
> There doesn't have to be.
The
From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
> you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
> have to distribute to anyone.
There doesn't have to be. Their premise is that they can not distribute to
people
Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "a collective work
> based on the program"?
Murky.
However, *if* Caspian argues that his distribution is a collective
work (which is necessary for him to make reservations about how it can
be re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> If they want to restrict to over 18,
There's still nothing in any of the relevant licenses that say that if
you distribute to people over 18 (or people with large beards) you
have to distribute to anyone.
There's even nothing in most of the licenses tha
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:21:51PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> I know, this will be highly controversive :
>
> SERIOUS SUGGESTION FOR WOODY :
> we should get rid of all gif-making packages except 1 package
> a2gif in non-free, which will allow you to convert other images to gifs if
> you R
I think that this is an idea whose time has really come-- to make a 100%
(TOTALLY) free distro _as good as the commercial/proprietaryish ones for
"end users"_ and suitable for heavy use by true geeks as well. This is a
project that I've wished to get involved in for quite some time now, and I
have
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:48:21AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even
> about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
> over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom talk",
> as RMS puts it. Ev
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:42:09AM -0800, Don Marti wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents
> > in some countries should not be treated like programs
> > restricted by their authors.
> >
> > gimp-n
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:41:30AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> As much as anything with "commercial" in the name makes me feel saddened
> just to talk about it, something like this clearly needs to be done. Yes.
> This is definitely a good idea. Much as I somet
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:05:58PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> > Peter S Galbraith writes:
> > > (I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
> > > legal; I don't know that it is. If it's called a `license', it's
> > > different that saying you ca
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:05:58PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
> > (I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
> > legal; I don't know that it is. If it's called a `license', it's
> > different that saying you can have this GPL code for $1)
William T Wilson writes:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> > Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire
> > distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was
> > assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
>
> In short, you can't do that.
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote:
> about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
> over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom talk",
> as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.
That's right. It's unfortunate, but I don
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire
> distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was
> assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
In short, you can't do that. You can't circumvent the provisions of t
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> I wrote:
>
> > > If you don't own the code that is GPLed, you can't relicense it
> > > under a different license. How could you then use `a license
> > > that prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort
> > > of nonsense they've been pulling' if the GPL
While we clearly won't agree on philosophical grounds, perhaps we're not as far
apart as you might think. Your philosophical concerns are well stated here and
I'd
like to respond to some of your concerns as they pertain to Corel.
> Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.
As a publicl
> It'd be nice if they'd send their lawyers to this list so that they can
> explain wtf is going on, and give us some helpful comments without having
> to add `IANAL' or `I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice' like the
> rest of us do.
I'll be posting a note from our legal department here in
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Don Marti wrote:
> But if you must have a category for "free software to create a GIF",
> neither non-us nor non-free seems to apply.
What of the sort of thing that was used in the older (pre-PNG) releases of
GD? I.e. code that generates GIF files that an ordinary GIF viewer c
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents
> in some countries should not be treated like programs
> restricted by their authors.
>
> gimp-nonfree should be renamed and reclassified as a free non-us
> package.
LZ
On Dec 02, Caspian wrote:
> Something-- SOMETHING-- must be done, or in five to ten years the Linux
> (and I do say "Linux" here, since it will no longer be "GNU/Linux")
The "GNU/Linux" term has relatively little currency outside Debian.
It never has been "GNU/Linux" to more than a few people. I
I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even
about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom talk",
as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.
Crap like Core
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 07:28:06AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> Maybe at this point, what's really needed is something -stricter- than the
> GPL. Companies are already starting to walk all over the spirit-- if not
> the letter-- of the GPL...just one idea, eh?
The strictiest still-DFSG-compatible licen
In reference to:
> > > > > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is
> > > > > interested in making a completely, utterly free
> > > > > software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that prohibits
> > > > > putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of
> > > > > nonsense they've been pu
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > From: Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> > completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> > prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of no
From: Anthony Towns
> What sort of obligation?
To comply with the licenses of our software.
> It'd be nice if they'd get around to contributing all their enhancements
> back to Debian. That's a bit tricky since new-maintainers doesn't seem to
> have reopened yet, and it requires doing stuff that
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 10:33:16PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> AJ:
> > If you want to download something from their site, you have to do what
> > they tell you to. They're not adding restrictions on what you can do with
> Don't forget that they still have obligations to us, regarding our software
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> infolved did bring up my original objection---that removing the suggests
> will make it harder for people to find things like "gimp-nonfree" (which
> is IMO badly named considering that the contents of the package are
>
infolved did bring up my original objection---that removing the suggests
will make it harder for people to find things like "gimp-nonfree" (which
is IMO badly named considering that the contents of the package are
completely free--unless you live in the drain-bamaged US where LZW is
AJ:
> If you want to download something from their site, you have to do what
> they tell you to. They're not adding restrictions on what you can do with
Don't forget that they still have obligations to us, regarding our software
licenses. It's still not clear to me that one isn't being broken here
> From: Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> they've been pulling, (i.e. a license ev
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote:
> I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> they've been pulling, (i.e. a license ev
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I think imposing additional conditions on the use of software downloaded
> from Corel in fact contaminates EVERY license. And while some of the
It does, but Corel isn't following the DFSG, so I don't think it matters.
> by Corel to their licenses, I am
Oops, my example is less useful than it should have been because of a DNS
problem.
My "Big Beard Agreement" distribution of GCC may be found at
http://ishmael.loyalty.org/~sigma/reductiones-ab-absurda/big-beard-software/
--
Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study w
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 02:21:08AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
>
> You may have a point. If you have to click something that says you
> are 18 _before_ you download the GPL part, that's probably part of a
>
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > Note that you won't be able to include any GPLed software in your
> > distribution if you want to make restrictions about how and when
> > other people or corporations are allowed to redistribute it.
>
> Where does the GPL
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> > Henning Makholm writes:
> >
> > > Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making
> > > > a
> > > > completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a lice
Joseph Carter writes:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 02:21:08AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
> >
> > You may have a point. If you have to click something that says you
> > are 18 _before_ you download the GPL part, that's probably part of a
> > contam
Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
>
> > Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> > > completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> > > prohibits putzen like those at Corel
Henning Makholm writes:
> Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> > completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> > prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> > th
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 08:08:25AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> Thus, I am wondering if anything can be done. Can there not be a license
> made so that a given piece of software cannot be used to fill the pockets
> of greedy people-- or at least so that it would be exceedingly difficult
> to do so?
Sur
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 01:28:52PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > You may have a point. If you have to click something that says you
> > are 18 _before_ you download the GPL part, that's probably part of a
> > contaminating license.
>
> No, they are just selecting who *they* want to distribute
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 04:33:58AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 02:21:08AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> If there is _ANY_ EULA that you must agree to before you can have the GPL
> code it's forcing you to agree to their proprietary software terms.
This is just plain wrong.
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Perhaps before suggesting that the DFSG is too lenient you should actually
> read it first and second figure out what exactly it allows that is too
> lenient. I admit I'm curious, however I'm more or less convinced by the
> tone of your message (and all
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 06:25:40AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> they've been pullin
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 02:21:08AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
>
> You may have a point. If you have to click something that says you
> are 18 _before_ you download the GPL part, that's probably part of a
> contaminating license. But please note th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> You may have a point. If you have to click something that says you
> are 18 _before_ you download the GPL part, that's probably part of a
> contaminating license.
No, they are just selecting who *they* want to distribute the software
to. You don't have t
Maybe at this point, what's really needed is something -stricter- than the
GPL. Companies are already starting to walk all over the spirit-- if not
the letter-- of the GPL...just one idea, eh?
On 1 Dec 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd just like to stat
Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> they've been pulling,
Note that you wo
I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
they've been pulling, (i.e. a license even stricter than Debian's) I'd
love to help
From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
You may have a point. If you have to click something that says you
are 18 _before_ you download the GPL part, that's probably part of a
contaminating license. But please note that my original criticism never
e
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 10:54:42AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I looked at the web page you sent me. It does not seem to violate
> the GPL as regards the GPL-covered programs included in it,
> although there are some subtle issues I haven't yet figured out.
>
> It does say that some non-free
Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>I'm including the full text below. What I find particularly odious is
> not the exclusion of minors (though it is odious), but the contention (as
> usual in purported EULAs) that Corel still retains title to the copy of
> the software downloaded, wh
Richard Stallman writes:
> Putting GPL-covered programs together with non-free programs in a
> collection such as an operating system does not violate the GPL, and
> Corel is not the first to do this. I think this is a harmful practice,
> and that even Debian goes too far in this direction, but t
I'm including the full text below. What I find particularly odious is
not the exclusion of minors (though it is odious), but the contention (as
usual in purported EULAs) that Corel still retains title to the copy of
the software downloaded, whether it's under GPL or not.
That c
Putting GPL-covered programs together with non-free programs in a
collection such as an operating system does not violate the GPL, and
Corel is not the first to do this. I think this is a harmful practice,
and that even Debian goes too far in this direction, but there is no
use singling out Corel
> It does say that some non-free programs are included in the system.
If my memory serves me correctly, this is because Netscape Navigator is included
in the downloadable version of the distribution. Since Navigator isn't "Free"
software the EULA has to allow for such software.
It's a much ignore
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The way I see it (and IANAL), the GPL (and other free software
> licenses) are copyright licenses that accompany copies of software. If I
> never receive actual ownership of the copy, it's not clear that I would
> receive the accompanying license,
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
