On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
What you say is: I could replace the "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's
Stone" with another novel under the same name "Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer's Stone" and with the same characters (data structures,
enums...) and places (functions, macros...) AND a
On 21/03/2019, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2019-03-20 16:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> How this relates to compilation?
>
> It doesn't. Nobody is disputing that the compiled result is GPL.
>
> The question at hand is the licensing of the source. These are two
> separate issues.
Sure, I was talkin
On 2019-03-20 16:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> How this relates to compilation?
It doesn't. Nobody is disputing that the compiled result is GPL.
The question at hand is the licensing of the source. These are two
separate issues.
> If the GPL header at
> https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/
On 20/03/2019, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Il 20/03/19 12:25, Giacomo Tesio ha scritto:
>> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
>> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
>> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
>
> I don't
Hi,
Il 20/03/19 12:25, Giacomo Tesio ha scritto:
> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
I don't understand what does this matter. Copyright apply to t
practitioners must predict their legal
standing by determining whether the proprietary software within a
combination, infringes on the distribution rights of the GPL software
licensor. They also must consider whether the proprietary software
constitutes a derivative work.
I should prob
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
For the license of source code, it is not required that it compiles.
And, taking out a p
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>
> > Apparently they’re not qualified in software licenses and copyrights.
> > Sorry I have to say that.
>
> You're a software engineer, with no legal qualifications or experience
> listed in your Linke
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Andrej Shadura wrote:
You cannot terminate GPL granted to someone without a violation. There
clearly is no violation in the case you’re describing. Your legal
advice is invalid.
I have legal advice, two independent sets, from qualified solicitors
that there is a violatio
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Here I suggest you all to find a friendly solution anyway for the same
reason.
I tried for years to find friendly solutions. Many of the things others
have suggested in this thread I already suggested/explored years and
years ago with the people who
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
They don't need to do that themself, but they may want to keep that
path open for downstream. And so their license allows that.
Their licence on their portion of the work, perhaps.
However, the work *also* requires a licence from the copyright holders
On 20/03/2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Giacomo Tesio writes:
>> While they are distributing the whole as GPL (which is correct) they
>> are actively stating that people can take a part of it that can only
>> be used as GPL and use it under a different license, while whoever do
>> so automatically
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> A downstream could remove the GPL dependencies (for example by
>> replacing it with a [dummy] re-implementation, or by removing any
>> references) and legally redistribute the result under a non-GPL
>> license.
>
> I advised the p
On 20/03/2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
>> It goes without saying that adding a GPL header to those files that
>> need it would be totally equivalent and more fool-proof.
>
> After X years of not doing so, denying the applicability of the GPL to
> files which
On 20/03/2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But I think that the GPL says that you have to distribute any derived
> work as GPL.
> It doesn't say that you have to distribute the derived work as GPL only.
Badly expressed sorry.
I mean, if the derived work contains GPL-only code, it must be
distributed
On 20/03/2019, David Lamparter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:17:32AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> The code distributed under a non-copyleft license depends heavily on
>> copylefted one, so much that it's not possible to run (or even
>> compile) it without the pre-existing copylefted one (t
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
A downstream could remove the GPL dependencies (for example by
replacing it with a [dummy] re-implementation, or by removing any
references) and legally redistribute the result under a non-GPL
license.
I advised the people, who are now FRR, that this
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
It goes without saying that adding a GPL header to those files that
need it would be totally equivalent and more fool-proof.
If that had been done at the outset...
After X years of not doing so, denying the applicability of the GPL to
files which are
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> While they are distributing the whole as GPL (which is correct) they
> are actively stating that people can take a part of it that can only
> be used as GPL and use it under a different license, while whoever do
> so automatically terminates their own license on the whole F
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:17:32AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> The code distributed under a non-copyleft license depends heavily on
> copylefted one, so much that it's not possible to run (or even
> compile) it without the pre-existing copylefted one (that includes C
> headers that are not descri
On 20/03/2019, David Lamparter wrote:
> By relicensing their code to GPL, Quagga had essentially shunted itself
> down to the position of any random proprietary relicensor.
I guess you mean that Quagga renounced to further contribution from
these people.
But the point is that Quagga is clearly a
On 20/03/2019, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> This is an example of a common trend I see: social pressure to keep
> non-copylefted code under non-copyleft licenses, sometimes even escalating
> to aggression (as the OpenBSD project did with Linux over wireless drivers),
> while permitt
t seems to me that the authors are being a bit unfair to your
> copyleft project by making demands of you that they aren't
> (presumably) making of proprietary combiners of the code (i.e., if
> they didn't want the proprietary combiners to relicense under
> licenses other than t
That's an odd request, since it contradicts the terms of the license
> they offered the code under originally. In fact, it's quite typical for
> projects to take non-copylefted code and bring it into a copylefted project
> and make copylefted changes thereafter.
It is not always clear
erms of the license
they offered the code under originally. In fact, it's quite typical for
projects to take non-copylefted code and bring it into a copylefted project
and make copylefted changes thereafter. This has been in GCC, Linux, and
many of the most famous copyleft projects in history
On 2017-08-04 00:27 +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> I find there's not enough mention about The Project Gutenberg
> License[1].
It seems that license fails the DFSG, because § 1.E.8. imposes
restrictions on charging a fee for distribution which contradicts DFSG
§ 1.
> I meet
he functionality used in the software project. Of course you
> are right that it is a good idea to look for another kernel interface
> instead of copy the necessary structure to an own header file...
>
> Anyway, it would be interesting for me if this usage of pieces of a
> kernel header
Hey,
the problem is that this structure was in a uapi header until Linux 4.4
but it was replaced by a new header file in this kernel version. I'm not
the upstream author of the code so I'm not sure if there is another way
to access the functionality used in the software project. Of cour
* Jan Luca Naumann:
> Hey,
>
> the project I want to package is "sedutil":
> https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil
>
> The concrete problem/possible solution are described in my attempt to
> fix it:
> https://github.com/Drive-Trus
Hey,
the project I want to package is "sedutil":
https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil
The concrete problem/possible solution are described in my attempt to
fix it:
https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil/pull/56/commits/5ca6100917a025f6e11ae20838e1e37e7db2d587
I ju
Jan Luca Naumann writes:
> I want to package a project
Which work are you proposing to package? Many times, the specific work
will have peculiarities that need to be considered.
So just knowing the license in abstract is not enough. Where can we see
the complete source of the work onl
Hey,
I want to package a project using GPL-3 as license. The project uses
three structures defined in the kernel-include file . In
Kernel 4.4 the header is removed from the headers
exported to the user-space and replaced by another header
without the three structures needed.
One solution that
(removing ‘debian-gis’ forum from this discussion)
Ian Jackson writes:
> But that does not mean that we (as a project) could not explain
> clearly to people what we would like, and have a conversation with an
> upstream about what we might be willing to accept.
Right. I think tha
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Establishing dialogue between the Debian project and
OGC regarding Document & Software Notice terms"):
> The Social Contract for the Debian Project explicitly states that works
> acceptable for inclusion in Debian must not have conditions specific to
&
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> In the PyCSW discussion a good argument was made about the OGC Software
>> Notice terms not being problematic for Debian, because its terms are
>> identical to the W3C licenses and we have files licensed under
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Walter Landry wrote:
> The Software license looks fine. It is the Document license which is
> problematic. The first link above claims that there are many files
> already in Debian already under the W3C document license. I could not
> find any with a cursory sea
Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:
> In February 2015 the problematic OGC licenses were discussed on the
> OSGeo standards list [2], because the PyCSW project and its packaging
> was affected by the same issues as TinyOWS [3]. OGC followed that
> discussion and wants "to do wha
Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:
> A recurring problem with geospatial software in the Free Software
> community and Debian in particular has been the terms of the OGC
> Document Notice and Software Notice licenses.
What works are being considered for entry to Debian? What exact grant of
license do
Ben Finney writes:
> Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:
>
> > I'm now directing this to debian-legal in the hope we can get a
> > dialog going between the Debian project and the OGC (Open Geospatial
> > Consortium).
>
> Thank you for your dedication to ensurin
Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> In the PyCSW discussion a good argument was made about the OGC Software
> Notice terms not being problematic for Debian, because its terms are
> identical to the W3C licenses and we have files licensed under those
> terms in main:
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/
proach this.
The Social Contract for the Debian Project explicitly states that works
acceptable for inclusion in Debian must not have conditions specific to
Debian.
So the Debian Project can't enter bilateral negotiations of software
freedom between a copyright holder and Debian recipient
t;
>> Because I've been unable to get feedback from Thorsten Alteholz or any
>> of the other FTP masters about this issue, I'm now directing this to
>> debian-legal in the hope we can get a dialog going between the Debian
>> project and the OGC (Open Geospatial C
dialog going between the Debian
>> project and the OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium). I'm getting the
>> impression that the FTP masters are unwilling to discuss this issue
>> because it might constitute legal advise which is problematic in the US,
>> or because they only enf
Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:
> Because I've been unable to get feedback from Thorsten Alteholz or any
> of the other FTP masters about this issue, I'm now directing this to
> debian-legal in the hope we can get a dialog going between the Debian
> project and the OGC (Open
Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> Because I've been unable to get feedback from Thorsten Alteholz or any
> of the other FTP masters about this issue, I'm now directing this to
> debian-legal in the hope we can get a dialog going between the Debian
> project and the OGC (Open
Because I've been unable to get feedback from Thorsten Alteholz or any
of the other FTP masters about this issue, I'm now directing this to
debian-legal in the hope we can get a dialog going between the Debian
project and the OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium). I'm getting the
impr
Simon pointed out the key question: if it is a derivative work or just
an aggregation of two works (code + logo, or logo + text). I don't think
it would be considered a derivative but IANAL.
Also note that even if the executable was a derivative work of the logo
(and thus subject to the CC-BY-SA
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > "share alike" (thus copyleft) licensing of the entire project, i.e. it
> > would not be available for close-source derivatives?
> The important question is, is the code or documentation legally a
> derivative work of the
On 25/02/15 15:55, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Now at least we agreed that logo could be released under CC BY SA
> (share-alike) license but I wondered: if I have a software project
> which is under more permissive license (MIT or BSD-3) and then includes
> that logo a) in the code
alike) license but I wondered: if I have a software project
which is under more permissive license (MIT or BSD-3) and then includes
that logo a) in the code b) in the documentation. Does it obligates
"share alike" (thus copyleft) licensing of the entire project, i.e. it
would not b
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:17:47 +0200 Daniel Pocock wrote:
Hello Daniel,
>
> I understand that Eclipse Public License (EPL) v1.0 is not GPL compatible.
Correct and confirmed by the FSF license list:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EPL
>
> This suggests that EPL is LGPL-3 compatibl
> What about LGPL-2.1?
I think that it is compatible. Section 6 explains situations in which
you can combine with other licenses. If you combine it with a work using
other licenses, those licenses must allow modification and reverse
engineering (which it seems the EPL does).
However, it would app
I understand that Eclipse Public License (EPL) v1.0 is not GPL compatible.
This suggests that EPL is LGPL-3 compatible:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/03/msg00017.html
What about LGPL-2.1?
There have been various other comments about it online, but none
appeared definitive, e.g:
Dear all,
Sorry, I could not reply earlier.
2014-05-26 10:29 GMT+02:00 Thibaut Paumard :
> Sorry to bump in, but am I understanding this correctly that Sergio is
> also upstream in this work? In this case, that's entirely his busyness
> to change or reword the copyright statement and the license
On 25-05-14 23:27, David Prévot wrote:
>> I am surprised by the fact that you changed the text of the copyright
>> statement as found in festvox/upc_ca_ona_hts.scm.
>
> The policy (4.5) clearly states that’s not allowed: “Every package must
> be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright info
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.d
Dear IANALs, ANALs and Zack,
not out of boredom but just out of enthusiastic inspiration I
thought to come up with a logo to use for our Python-In-Debian efforts.
All variants are available at
http://www.onerussian.com/tmp/pydebian-red_tuned/
Unfortunately PSF (Python Software Foundation) has for
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
I suspect analysis by month and by volume would be more illuminating. I
took a look at the code, but there's not much explanation. Is it
possible to add volumes in an easy way?
Sorry the code is crude at best - I will rewrite it from scratch
if this analysis
Hi,
The comments below might not apply to the current package, but
are addressed to some of the troubling aspects of the license.
,
| 14. ADDITIONAL TERM: ATTRIBUTION
| (a) As a modest attribution to the organizer of the development of
| the Original Code ("Original Devel
Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The CPAL is an OSI approved license.
That's informative, but not sufficient to show that *software* under that
licence follows the DFSG. (OSI has lawyers advocating licences, while
debian looks at software for users.)
Would you explain:-
- can s
On 9/15/07, Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The CPAL is an OSI approved license.
Debian, as well as the FSF, has rejected many OSI-approved licenses before.
(Being OSI-approved does of course mean you've come most of the way to
being DFSG-free, but a lot of OSI approved licenses
ude display on a splash screen), if any.
Is this a requirement to display a splash screen?
Here the term Original Developer is specified as "the organizer of the
development of the Original Code" which sounds to me like it could be
the sponsor or project host, rather than the Initial
the end user to access such
> Covered Code (which may include display on a splash screen), if any.
Is this a requirement to display a splash screen?
Here the term Original Developer is specified as "the organizer of the
development of the Original Code" which sounds to me like it c
On 9/13/07, Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Package name: openproj
> Version : 0.9.4
> Upstream Author : Projity Inc.
> * URL : http://www.openproj.org
> * License
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
The project developers want to distribute a single set of source files
under both the licenses. They don't want to have to maintain two
different directories with two different versions of the same files with
merely the license headers differing.
Please examin
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:12:55 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > what's your definition of "proprietary software", then? Software
> > with source code kept secret?
>
> Software whose use, modification, selling, or distribution is
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> The first common meanings of the word "proprietary" seem to refer to
> the concept of property, owning, and trademark/patent/copyright.
They refer to the concept of property which is *exclusively* owned and
controlled, such that a single entity is able
On Tue, 29 May 2007 03:15:37 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of
> > > its actual english meaning.
> >
> > A piece of free software
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of
> > its actual english meaning.
>
> A piece of free software is not "able to act at will", nor is it
> "exempt from subjection to
On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:29:27 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco
> Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >I still cannot see why "proprietary" should mean "with secret source
> >code": its basic common meaning is "owned by a proprietor" and does
> >not refer t
On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:01:53 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
[a message with a BAD signature]
For those who verified the GPG signature of my previous message and
found a BAD one: I apologize, I was again fooled by bug #302264...
--
http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.ht
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco
Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I still cannot see why "proprietary" should mean "with secret source
code": its basic common meaning is "owned by a proprietor" and does
not refer to closeness or secrecy.
Your own words condemn you :-)
This is an accura
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > If you consult a dictionary you won't find any reference to the FSD
> > or to
Hello people. One question about the header I recently sent for final
approval --
The project developers want to distribute a single set of source files
under both the licenses. They don't want to have to maintain two
different directories with two different versions of the same files
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
> > > Whatever the its origin is[1], the term "proprietary" is now a
> > > well-established[2] word used as opposed to "free" (as in freedom).
On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Whatever the its origin is[1], the term "proprietary" is now a
> > well-established[2] word used as opposed to "free" (as in freedom).
>
> And no, it's not a well-established word in tha
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:05:54 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> [...]
> > If you use the word "proprietary", you are merely echoing the
> > terminology used/popularised by Microsoft - do you remember their
> > marketing slogan "Unix is proprietary, Wi
On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:05:54 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
> If you use the word "proprietary", you are merely echoing the
> terminology used/popularised by Microsoft - do you remember their
> marketing slogan "Unix is proprietary, Windows is open"?
>
> If you use the word "proprietary
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shriramana Sharma
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying
"proprietary" when I used the word "commercial". I also realize that
the GPL does not preclude "commercial" == "for profit" usage. I was
merely echoing the
I have applied corrections based on your comments and herewith enclose
the new draft of the header for the source files. If it is approved by
this list as no faults are found, I will go ahead and use it.
Please if there are any faults that must be corrected, tell me. If I do
not receive any such
Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying
> "proprietary" when I used the word "commercial". I also realize that
> the GPL does not preclude "commercial" == "for profit" usage. I was
> merely echoing the terminology used by Trollt
As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying
"proprietary" when I used the word "commercial". I also realize that the
GPL does not preclude "commercial" == "for profit" usage. I was merely
echoing the terminology used by Trolltech. I do not condone it however.
Thanks as always
Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license
> their project under the GPL and a commercial-license.
The GPL *is* a commercial license; all free software is entirely open
to commercial activity, by definiti
On 30/04/07, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their
project under the GPL and a commercial-license.
I think you've already been nitpicked about this, but I'll do it again
anyways: the GPL *is* a co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks OK to me, so long as there's nothing prohibiting the removal of
the note at the end.
I forgot to mention: while this is OK, it would be even better to use
the standard GPL header with your note at the end.
On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks OK to me, so long as there's nothing prohibiting the removal of
the note at the end.
I forgot to mention: while this is OK, it would be even better to use
the standard GPL header with your note at the end.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlin
On 5/1/07, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their
project under the GPL and a commercial-license. They have asked not to
publicise this until the official release which is why I am using
generic terms - i.e. thi
A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their
project under the GPL and a commercial-license. They have asked not to
publicise this until the official release which is why I am using
generic terms - i.e. this is a real question with immediate relevance,
and not a
J'ai une nouvelle adresse de courrielVous pouvez maintenant m'écrire à : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dear Sir/MadamAm down with cancer and need help from youElena Smith- Elena Smith
J'ai une nouvelle adresse de courrielVous pouvez maintenant m'écrire à : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dear Sir/Madam Am down with cancer and need help from you Elena Smith - elena smith
J'ai une nouvelle adresse de courrielVous pouvez maintenant m'écrire à : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dear Sir/Madam Am down with cancer and need help from you Elena Smith - elena smith
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:44:56 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 26/09/2005 17:31 : wrote Francesco Poli :
[...]
> > The best definition of source
> > that I know of is the one found in the GPL.
> >
>
> We will have to agree on disagreeing, then. :-)
>
> The definition on the GPL (section 3, para
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:35:57 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >As I already said, I'm not so convinced that a pseudonym "identifies"
> >a person. In fact, it does (almost) the opposite, I would say.
> >It builds a 'fak
> > 2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
>
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Fails the dissident test, but there's some level of disagreement over
> whether that matters.
Doesn't it depend on the meaning of "identified"? We accept such licenses if
arbitrary pseudonyms are
@ 26/09/2005 17:31 : wrote Francesco Poli :
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:33:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit
>> :
>>> > 2. The person making the modifications must be
>>> > identified.
>>>
>>> Yellow alert -- dis
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As I already said, I'm not so convinced that a pseudonym "identifies" a
person. In fact, it does (almost) the opposite, I would say.
It builds a 'fake' identity, but hides the real identity of its owner.
IMHO, it's
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:33:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
> > > 2. The person making the modifications must be
> > > identified.
> >
> > Yellow alert -- dissident test. Marco d'Itri is extremely vocal
> > ag
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:09:08 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 24/09/2005 14:22 : wrote Francesco Poli :
[...]
Thanks for your analysis.
P.S.: please do not reply to me, as I didn't asked that: rather, reply
to the list only! thanks
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?
Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
> > 2. The person making the modifications must be
> > identified.
>
> Yellow alert -- dissident test. Marco d'Itri is extremely vocal
> against the Dissident Test, but I think anonymity is necessary for
> Free
ike to discuss the DFSG-compliance of a work released solely
> under this license (excluding other legal issues, such as
> trademarks, patents, and so forth).
>
>
> =-=-=-=-= License text follows: =-=-=-=-=
>
>
>LINUX DOCUMENTATION PROJECT LICENSE (LDPL) v2.0, 12 January
>
1 - 100 of 303 matches
Mail list logo
