On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 19:51, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> I don't know, but if there are not, and a lot of people start
> using such licenses, the big media companies are likely to get
> their supporters in government to enact an amendment stating
> that just because the copyright holders of *some* works
>
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 01:51:31AM +0100, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 12:47:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Is there any "DMCA-like laws" anywhere that say that a copyright
> > holder can *not* authorize other people to access his work?
> >
>
> I don't know, but if there ar
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 12:47:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > > Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> > > Document), you grant to the recipient a
Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> > Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties
> > in possession of the Document the authority to g
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:29:32AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the
> > > recipient and all third parti
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:29:32AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the
> > recipient and all third parties".
> ^
> "in posesion of the (modified) s
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:30:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > I think it is counterintuitive to read the "directly or
> > > indirectly" as a restrictive phrasing. On the
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the
> > recipient and all third parties".
> "in posesion of the (modified) software", right?
I'm not sure that is strictly necessary.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the
> recipient and all third parties".
^
"in posesion of the (modified) software", right?
Otherwise it can sound like "source must be available to e
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think it is counterintuitive to read the "directly or
> > indirectly" as a restrictive phrasing. On the contrary,
> > it is meant to be inclusive, pointing out explicitly that the
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > No, you could have broken into my computer and taken it.
>
> Oh. Somewhat far out, I think. But nevertheless...
Then it should be harmless enough to ensure that the license can't be
interpreted this way.
> > But I don't think t
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Surely, if I encode the Document, and it turns up in my encoding at
> > your computer a year later, it must be either because I gave you a
> > copy (in which case you get the rights
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:55:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Oops, I confused myself. This phrase "all third parties that receive
> > copies indirectly through the recipient" is still there.
>
> Could you state again what problem you have wi
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> > Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
> > receive copies indirectly through the recipient
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Strike it and replace it with:
>
> Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
> receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to g
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
> receive copies indirectly through the recipient
Oops, I confused myself. This phrase "all third part
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that
> receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to gain
> access to the work by descramb
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What, exactly, do we consider harmful about it? I'm not convinced that
> > ``You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
> > or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.'' [2] is enough
> > to make GFDL d
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:39:53AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Perhaps I'm being a spoilsport, but I feel that the GFDL is just
> fatally flawed. It tries to enumerate transparent and opaque formats,
> when transparency and opaqueness are really context dependent. It has
> all of the crap with
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:47:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > * How the GFDL could be fixed
>
> It's my intention that the "Debian rider" language would pretty much
> encapsulate this goal.
Perhaps I'm being a spoilsport, but I feel that the
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 02:55:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> You'd want to be careful about ending up with YA documentation license
> that's mutually incompatible with everything else out there. Or at least,
> very upfront about it, so people can avoid it.
I've been making bellicose statements
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:34:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:47:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So, considering the comments made and the FSF's lack of response [0],
> > it's probably time for us to do a brief and simple "GNU FDL Considered
> > Harmful" write
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:47:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, considering the comments made and the FSF's lack of response [0],
> it's probably time for us to do a brief and simple "GNU FDL Considered
> Harmful" write up [1],
As part of this, I think we should write a boilerplate rider that
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 12:17:09AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Interesting link via google:
[snip]
> -- http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-June/002238.html
Indeed. It's good to see we're not the only people who find Invariant
Sections unpalatable.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:39:16PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I would ask that, *especially* if Debian formalizes my metaphor or
> > builds upon it in any way, that the FSF not change its definition of
> > Free Software without running it b
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:47:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> * What's wrong with the GFDL and what problems can it cause
Interesting link via google:
The FOLDOC computing dictionary has been licenced to us under GFDL
without invariant sections. We have incorporated many articles
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:35:24PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:42, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The status quo is not tolerable, and if the comments are not published
> > by the FSF soon, it seems to me that someone else should take the task
> > upon them of publishing
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
> >
> > I think it's brilliant.
>
> I get nervous when people
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:42, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[snip flaming, the substance if which, if not the tone, I agree with]
> RMS has shown his usual intransigence, but the real problem is that
> the FSF has been starkly dishonest! He promised a review after a
> comment period, and then the co
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:08:46PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What do you folks think of my paradigm? Useful or not?
>
> I think it's brilliant.
I get nervous when people react so enthusiastically; it makes fear that
I am unwittingly aid
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Branden Robinson wrote:
> FSF's definition of Free Software --> Constitution
> Debian Free Software Guidelines--> statutory law
> debian-legal discussions --> case law
> So debian-legal, in our role as judges and arbitrators, atte
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:21:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
I say this with great sadness, but there appears to be a difference
in RMS's and the Debian Project's interpretation of "freedom 3".
The freedom to improve the
32 matches
Mail list logo
