On 1/21/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>
> > Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it
> > so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
> > conclusive evidence...
>
> Well, the definitely filed for it. Go t
Frank Küster wrote:
> Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it
> so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
> conclusive evidence...
Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, click on "SEARCH trademark
Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Later in the file, it is written:
>
> ,
> | If this program is changed, the resulting system should not be called
> | `\TeX'; the official name `\TeX' by itself is reserved
> | for software systems that are fully compatible with each other.
> | A spe
Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To the best of my knowledge, TeX is explicitly in the public domain,
But the only source we have for that seems to be the article by Knuth
that you cite (I have also searched the web without getting anywhere
else):
> Some searching around led to an ar
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:46:52PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
> What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A billy goat gruff, if I remember my mythology correctly.
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> So here it is:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
> receive copies of the work."
I like this, together with Arnoud's suggestions. But Walter is right;
t
Hands Off Yorick!
On 1/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
>
> A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
>
> (ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
> the code of conduct
Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no top-posting. That means you.)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http:
On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > compatible with itself
>
> The GPL is incompatible with itself. [ ... Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01 ...]
Beside that,
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3.ht
On 1/19/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A troll hunter.
regards,
alexander.
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:33:41PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander> On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexander> [...]
Alexander> > compatible with itself
Alexander>
Alexander> The GPL is incompatible with itself.
Alexa
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> compatible with itself
The GPL is incompatible with itself.
A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly discov
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did we ever find concrete evidence that TeX comes with a license to
>> create modified versions under different names? The copyright notice
>> at the top of tex.web presents only the patch option, and
>> /usr/share/doc/tetex-bin/copyright is not of much
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:14:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Have you heard argument three?
> "A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically
> prohibits code reuse in the same way. This sucks, but we consider it Free
> (while discouraging it). Patch clauses
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse. The only
> counterarguments I've ever seen are:
>
> - "code reuse isn't important" (often thinly veiled as eg. "you don't
>really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it"), and
> - "if you really wan
On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...}
> What do other people think of this?
I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary
contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to
deem now "compatible".
The OSI approval (I just pray that s
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:18:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But in that case, you might find it more fruitful to discuss this clause
> with the FSF itself rather than with debian-legal.
Well, I'm not discussing these things here to try to get the weight of "this
would make Debian call the GP
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
> after an hour or two's thought.
>
> The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
> than ends, which we have diagnosed
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
>>all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
>>clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
>>affected.
On 1/18/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Also, how about just "to receive copies" and add "under the terms
> of this License".
Sneaky. But it won't help.
GPLv3 9.[5] Not a Contract. ("You are not required to accept this
License in order to receive a copy of the Program.")
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
> receive copies of the work."
This sounds a lot better. I would suggest using "work based on the
Program" to re-use th
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
> than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
> errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative
> works, it causes endless trouble.
Tha
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 04:08:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and
> > Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch
> > clauses? If you've accidentally
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting the function
Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
> all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
> clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
> affected.
Did we ever find concr
Michio Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
> (Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.)
Nngh.
> Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for
> changing views at the drop of a hat. For examp
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes
>> that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're
>> not?
>
> You're asking me to repeat t
Matthew Garrett:
> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
> looks astonishingly bad?
Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
>horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
>deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
>standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reason
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
> >> with all necessary freedoms, but now we'
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
>> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
>> looks astonishingly bad?
>
> So the real
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:47:18AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
> >> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
> >> deciding th
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
>> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
>> deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
>> standards of fre
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
>>clauses. There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
>>of that "don't want my pet package declared non-free" agenda going on,
>>and it see
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:40:55PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its
> > > own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or
> > > subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license.
> >
> >
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure. I
> > > can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
> > > code I'm reusing. That's hardly reasonable. It a
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure. I
> > can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
> > code I'm reusing. That's hardly reasonable. It also prohibits me from
> > using
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:21:14AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
> deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
> standards of freedom,
Glenn Maynard writes:
> > > (On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch
> > > clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...)
> >
> > Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
> > insufficiently complicated.
>
> If I'm reusing a function from o
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
> clauses. There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
> of that "don't want my pet package declared non-free" agenda going on,
> and it seems like an obviously unr
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:56:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Should the Debian project make a stink anyway? Only if you also want to
> > make a stink about the LGPL, the X license, and every non-copyleft
> > license, because all permit a derivative work to add something like the
> > Affero c
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:37:15AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The fact that they claim the Affero license is free didn't suggest that
> to you already?
Personally, I stopped paying attention to what they claim is free and
non-free when they called the GFDL free. I just expect people to go
"h
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go;
> > patch clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...)
>
> Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
> insufficient
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's a wide difference. The GPLv3 is explicitly making a statement:
> "these restrictions are acceptable". Permissive licenses merely say "I
> don't care". It implies that the FSF considers such restrictions free,
> and either hasn't considered, or
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:10:38PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> All these objections from Debian folks, and no one has yet noticed the
> irony that the type of clause in question (the Affero language) has been
> championed by the man who wrote the DFSG, Bruce Perens. Bruce repeatedly
> called the abil
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I think you're the third person to say something along those lines: "be
> thankful, it could be a lot worse". It's still endorsing an extremely
> onerous class of restriction, implying that it's acceptable, helpful,
> and that the classes of application screwed over by it is
46 matches
Mail list logo
