Corcomp Infosystems Ltd. is a India based IT services company providing
business, technology as
well as cost benefits enabled by Information technology.
We provide business benefits by rendering enterprise solutions in verticles
like retail, insurance, process manufacturing, transportation etc.
I
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:55:06PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > which sounds like the Artistic license's
> >
> > "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of
> > media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on"
>
> The parenthetical comment
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:55:06PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> which sounds like the Artistic license's
>
> "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of
> media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on"
The parenthetical comment that follows
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. Let me rephrase it bit. Their license says:
>
> Permission is granted to reproduce the document in any way providing
> that it is distributed for free, except for any reasonable charges for
> printing, distribution, staff time, etc.
>
>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Looks like words lifted from the Artistic license ( "Reasonable copying
> > fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication
> > charges, time of people involved, and so o
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looks like words lifted from the Artistic license ( "Reasonable copying
> fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication
> charges, time of people involved, and so on.)
In the case of the Artistic License, it was explicitly
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "TB" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> A.
> >> [...]
> >> You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or
> >> use of this file or modified versions or fragments thereof,
> >> except for a nominal charge f
"TB" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Me> Doesn't the GPL say pretty much the same thing in Section
Me> 3.b.?
TB> You don't have to abide by that section if you don't want
TB> to; that section applies only if you distribute binaries
TB> without source. Read the GPL
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> So the restriction of a ``nominal'' or ``reasonable'' charge is
> enough to cause a problem here, even if there was no real charge
> being made? (I'm assuming that the problem here is with the first
> clause of the DFSG,
...
> Doesn't the GPL say pretty
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [From discussion of D]
> TB> The limitation on copying fees mean that these files
> TB> cannot be in Debian, but they can be in the non-free
> TB> archive.
>
> So the restriction of a ``nominal'' or ``reasonable'' charge is
> enough to
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By ``bundling rule'', you're referring to ``You are allowed to
> distribute this file under the condition that it is distributed
> together with all the files listed herein.''?
>
> Which clause of the DFSG is that a problem for? The first (free
> red
"TB" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> A.
>> [...]
>> You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or
>> use of this file or modified versions or fragments thereof,
>> except for a nominal charge for copying etc.
>> D.
>> [...]
>> Permission
"TB" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> G.
>>
>> This software was written as a personal project and comes
>> with NO WARRANTY of any kind, not even MERCHANTABILITY or
>> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The author assumes no
>> responsibility for any use.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 11:55:30AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> I can't speak for Branden, but the first time I read the LPPL, I was
> nervous as well. The restrictions on modifications are a huge hassle.
> It doesn't clearly allow distribution of binaries built from modified
> source. Also, the
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2. Restrictions on modification
>
> Presumably this one is the real sticking point. It seems to
> me that the logic behind this restriction makes sense for
> the core LaTeX packages -- the developers don't want to
> receive c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"BR" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Sorry if the following is redundant, but I want to make sure
we're all on the same page.]
To clarify, most of the ``documentation'' files I'm concerned with
here are generated from the same source as th
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
>
> (Just musing - the following does not change our conclusions about
> whether Debian can distribute the files in question).
>
> > The Berne Convention generally only requires "Copyright" and a date
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
(Just musing - the following does not change our conclusions about
whether Debian can distribute the files in question).
> The Berne Convention generally only requires "Copyright" and a date to
> claim a copyright, and sometimes, not even that.
I
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Is there some reason you trimmed that? Just so you could make the
> > same point yourself?
>
> No point being so agressive. I read the message as you meant that what
> I quoted had some relvance f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Is there some reason you trimmed that? Just so you could make the
> same point yourself?
No point being so agressive. I read the message as you meant that what
I quoted had some relvance for the conclusion --- Which we aparently both
knows is wr
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > copyright protection under the Pan-American copyright treaty. (And
> > it's still relevant, because there are some countries which have
> > signed the Pan-American treaty, and not the Berne Convent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> copyright protection under the Pan-American copyright treaty. (And
> it's still relevant, because there are some countries which have
> signed the Pan-American treaty, and not the Berne Convention.)
No it's not really relevant because with the
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With the above exception, I concur with Thomas's very thorough analysis.
He's being so nice! Branden should run for DPL every month.
Thomas
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Copyright (C) [1998] by Taylor French. All rights reserved.
> >
> > dtx file also says
> >
> >The usual GNU-style conditions apply: If you change it, you
> >take the blame; if you pass it on, pass on all present
> >conditions;"
>
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 11:19:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 2) The GNU Free Documentation License, with an explicit statement
> asserting that there are Invariants Sections, and no Cover Texts;
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html#TOC1
Gar.
2) The GNU Free Documentation License, with an
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 05:13:51PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> I will be attempting to contact the authors of the files that
> aren't DFSG-free to encourage them to clarify the licensing of
> their works (probably we'll get LPPL for most, although I'm happy
> to mention alternatives).
Please d
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 08:00:01PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Mar 10, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> > There are about 30 documents (and the stuff they document) whose
> > licensing status is less clear, and those are the ones that I have
> > some questions on. I have included some example
> > cop
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I.
>
> (c) Copyright 1997 Jean-Paul DuBois tous droits reserves.
>
> Si vous desirez, distribuer ce document par FTP ou sur le WEB, ou
> placer un pointeur vers ce dernier, merci de m'en informer par
> e-mail et de me communiquer l'adresse correspon
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> H.
>
> This package is copyright \copyright~1989--1994 Charlie Varrick.
> All rights are reserved. The moral right of the author has been
> asserted. You are {\em not allowed\/} to take money for the
> distribution or use of this file except for a n
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> G.
>
> This software was written as a personal project and comes with NO
> WARRANTY of any kind, not even MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
> PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The author assumes no responsibility for any
> use.
>
> Copyright (C) 1997 Jane Roe
>
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> F.
>
> Copyright (C) [1998] by Taylor French. All rights reserved.
>
> dtx file also says
>
>The usual GNU-style conditions apply: If you change it, you
>take the blame; if you pass it on, pass on all present
>conditions;"
We can di
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> E.
>
> no statement of any kind
Depends on context. Either this is copyrighted, and we can't
distribute it at all (just like cases B and C), or it's under the
general copyright of the package.
Thomas
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> D.
>
> Robert High 8.92 basic additions
> Fred Howard 2.93 added cross-referencing and niceties
> Kristen Kow5.93 fixed for LaTeXe2 and onwards.
> Kristen Kow8.93 fixed for HTML converter, and added AMS tables
>
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> B.
> Copyright (C) 1995 John Doe
> C.
> Copyright (C) 1988, all rights reserved.
"All rights reserved" is the magic phrase that is necessary to get
copyright protection under the Pan-American copyright treaty. (And
it's still relevant, because there
On Mar 10, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> There are about 30 documents (and the stuff they document) whose
> licensing status is less clear, and those are the ones that I have
> some questions on. I have included some example
> copyright/distribution statements based on those in this
> ``unknown'' categor
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A.
>
> Copying of part or all of this file is allowed under the following
> conditions only:
>
>(1) You may freely distribute unchanged copies of the
>file. Please include the documentation when you do so.
>
>(2) You may modify a ren
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the meantime, should we drop the possibly problematic files
> from our packages, or can we continue distributing them on the
> basis that we have been distributing them without problems thus
> far, and that CTAN continues to include them in their ``
37 matches
Mail list logo
