Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only
> for the purpose of creating compatible implementations.
>
> http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp
>
> If you modified an application which implements PDF
Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only
> for the purpose of creating compatible implementations.
>
> http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp
>
> If you modified an application which implements PDF so tha
David B Harris writes:
> However, I'm not one who believes that just because a file format only
> has non-Free editor implementations that the file format itself is
> non-Free. There are many ways one can edit PDFs with Free tools, but
> this is beside the point for me. It's not (to my knowledge)
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually
> > prepare. That's quite discouraging.
>
> It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment instead of inline and in
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually
> >prepare. That's quite discouraging.
>
> It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment inste
On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually
prepare. That's quite discouraging.
It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment instead of inline and in
a charset that I don't use. I didn't detach
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
> > unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
>
> I just thought it was far too long. I thin
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:40:43 -0400, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:25:03 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms?
>> > Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion).
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
> unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
I just thought it was far too long. I think that about most new
licenses :(
Richard Braakman
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 07:40:43AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> If I develop a really spiffy document format for, say, a braille
> machine, document it thoroughly and publish it, and either don't take
> any patents out of it, or file one of those
> strictly-prior-art-to-stop-somebody-else-from-pa
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:25:03 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms?
> > Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion).
>
> As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on
> a non f
Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PDF is just plaintext (unless it uses encryption).
Or compression. There are mostly plain-text PDF files, but they are
quite unusual.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 05:04:48PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> If I were to try my own hand as an apprentice in the fine art of
> debian-legal license analysis, I might say the following :
[...]
Looks good, but don't forget that that is only phase one.
Phase two involves a "holistic" reading of
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:04:43 +0100, Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on a
>> non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would
>> allow me
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 07:04:43PM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on
> > a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would
> > allow me to d
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on
> a non free OS to do so. Are you aware of free software that would
> allow me to directly edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a
> point.
>
Um
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:58:36 -0400, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200
>> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> > This license is from the Creative
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't
>> consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for
>> editing.
>
> Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms?
Not really. The license simp
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:58:36 -0400, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This license is from the Creative Commons at
>> > http://creativecommons.org/license/re
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This license is from the Creative Commons at
> > http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-sa&format=text
> > It is designed to apply to text or simila
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > What do you think: DFSG free?
>
> It depends. If it is applied to, say, a PDF document, I wouldn't
> consider the result DFSG-free because PDF is not a format suitable for
> editing.
I'm contemplating applying it to a DocBook do
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This license is from the Creative Commons at
> http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-sa&format=text
> It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.)
>
> What do you think: DFSG free?
It depends. I
If I were to try my own hand as an apprentice in the fine art of
debian-legal license analysis, I might say the following :
DFSG 1: Free Redistribution
Section 3c gives the right to use it in a collective work.
DFSG 2: Source Code
Not specifically addressed here (at least in terms of "preferr
23 matches
Mail list logo
