Greg Pomerantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > They are also not enforceable in the US.
> > >
> > > Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
> > > up with one.
> >
> > This is what I know from Eben Moglen; I would ask him if he can give
> > you more exact cita
> > > They are also not enforceable in the US.
> >
> > Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
> > up with one.
>
> This is what I know from Eben Moglen; I would ask him if he can give
> you more exact citations. Also maybe look at the briefs that AT&T
> filed in
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > They are also not enforceable in the US.
>
> Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
> up with one.
This is what I know from Eben Moglen; I would ask
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> They are also not enforceable in the US.
Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
up with one.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a requirement to
> make a statement in supporting documentation? We consider both of
> those free.
Advertising clauses only need to be there if you are advertising.
They are also not enforceable in the
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:36:34AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 17:29, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> > Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
> > work more than copyright law?
>
> No, it restricts my ability to modify _other_ works, which, IMO, is
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:16:29PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Besides, I don't think [...] the ftp masters want to become the
> Truth Police.
Who says they aren't already?
>;-)
--
G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of
Debian GNU/Linux
"Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Phillips sed:
> > I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded "fair credit", but I would
> > object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular
> > form.
>
> Well I can agree to be flexible. Can you suggest either another
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 21:28, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> > But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction
> > that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could
> > we allow them if they are truthful?
> B
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 17:29, MJ Ray wrote:
> Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
> work more than copyright law?
No, it restricts my ability to modify _other_ works, which, IMO, is far
worse. Personally, I don't think the DFSG allows it, except by
grandfatheri
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 01:22, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> It's not just that I want to ensure I be personally be given proper credit
> for
> writing the articles, but that I ensure that future readers are always told
> that
> they can look to http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/ for the originals o
On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 21:28, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that
> invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them
> if
> they are truthful?
The cause is the non-freeness; one symptom of the non-
On Sat, 3 May 2003, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction
> that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we
> allow them if they are truthful?
Eek. "Truthful" is hard to define usefully here, and for some state
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mention you in advertizing material for my software is strictly worse
> than requiring mention in a cover text. ANd yet we consider the
> advertizing clause free.
Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
work more than copyr
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:20:04AM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> > I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them
> > specifies a brief back cover text:
> >
> > "This contains material from the Linux Quality Database at
>
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:20:04AM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them
> specifies a brief back cover text:
>
> "This contains material from the Linux Quality Database at
> http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk";.
>
> Is that a probl
Nick Phillips sed:
I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded "fair credit", but I would
object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular
form.
Well I can agree to be flexible. Can you suggest either another license, or
another way to apply the GFDL so that I can achieve
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 10:37:54PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> One possible response is that the GFDL does not allow these texts to
> be modified while the BSD advertizing clause does. If someone has too
> long of a credit, I can shorten that credit and still follow the BSD
> license provided I i
> "Glenn" == Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Glenn> On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 08:31:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman
Glenn> wrote:
>> How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a
>> requirement to make a statement in supporting documentation?
>> We consider both of
It can be misleading or wrong, and you'll never be able to take it
out.
But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that
invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them if
they are truthful?
In my case my only desire is to guarantee th
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Henning" == Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Henning> Scripsit "Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of
> >> them specifies a brief back cover text:
>
>
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 08:31:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a requirement to
> make a statement in supporting documentation? We consider both of
> those free.
Requiring that a piece of text be included on a cover is far more onerous
than requ
> "Henning" == Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henning> Scripsit "Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of
>> them specifies a brief back cover text:
>> Is that a problem?
Henning> My impressio
Scripsit "Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them
> specifies a brief back cover text:
> Is that a problem?
My impression of the consensus that is shaping up is that we're likely
to consider *any* cover text as a problem. Th
(I originally posted this to debian-user, as "GFDL Freeness Question")
I have some articles on the general topic of software quality at:
http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/articles/
They are all under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.1.
I would like these articles to be included in Li
25 matches
Mail list logo
