From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No. The GPL does not place any restrictions on fair use of the material. It
> only grants extra rights provided you agree to follow some rules. The GNU
> General Public License specifically reads: "Activities other than copying,
> distribution and modific
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 04:07:00PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > No. The GPL does not place any restrictions on fair use of the material. It
> > only grants extra rights provided you agree to follow some rules. The GNU
> > General Public License specific
Zope's venture capital guy contacted me. I've explained your sentiments
to him, and he'll explain it to his partners. Hopefully you'll see a
change.
Thanks
Bruce
--
The $70 Billion US "budget surplus" hardly offsets our $5 Trillion national
debt. The debt increased by $133 Billion
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Zope's venture capital guy contacted me. I've explained your sentiments
> to him, and he'll explain it to his partners. Hopefully you'll see a
> change.
>
> Thanks
>
Bruce,
Thanks for your work in this... I feel we (in the sense of the free
soft
From: Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thanks for your work in this... I feel we (in the sense of the free
> software community) are really making ground at the moment.
Darned amazing, isn't it? Now, let's not blow it...
Thanks
Bruce
--
The $70 Billion US "budget surplus" hardly
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:30:22PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> A 'field of endeavour' is something orthogonal to that. For example,
> manufacturing weapons. Selling slaves. Making hamburgers.
Thanks for raising this point! I have questions with Clause 6 too. Does
"No Discrimination Against Fie
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 07:45:44PM -0700, Anthony Fok wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:30:22PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> > A 'field of endeavour' is something orthogonal to that. For example,
> > manufacturing weapons. Selling slaves. Making hamburgers.
>
> Thanks for raising this point! I
Anthony Fok writes:
> Does "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" means that a license
> cannot restrict someone from using the program in immoral...
Whose "immoral"? I do not consider pornography immoral, and I consider
nuclear power a positive good. Others feel the opposite about one
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:02:36PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> In terms of zope, Bruce will be asking them to consider making the
> requirement a suggestion - so don't go flaming them :-)
I'd like to add that I was and am in contact with Paul Everitt of
Digital Creations <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about t
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:02:36PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> > In terms of zope, Bruce will be asking them to consider making the
> > requirement a suggestion - so don't go flaming them :-)
>
> I'd like to add that I was and am in contact with Paul E
I use LyX as my main word processor, and it's found in Contrib.
Unfortunately, it's GPL and linked against the non-free XForms library.
(KLyX is a derivative form linked against QT that we don't ship due to
KDE problems.) It seems to me that we would have the same problems
including it as we curren
Brian Ristuccia wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:42:00AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> >
> > This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like
> > XForms, Motif, GTK+, Qt or Win32. A copy of the GNU General Public
> > License version 2 follows.
> >
>
> It sounds like the a
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 11:12:43AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:42:00AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > >
> > > This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like
> > > XForms, Motif, GTK+, Qt or Win32. A copy of the GNU
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, David Starner wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:42:00AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > >
> > > This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like
> > > XForms, Motif, GTK+, Qt or Win32. A copy of the GNU General Public
> > >
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Acknowledged. I was attempting to point out the fact that the GPL
> grants rights in return for your restricting your rights in some way
> in return (following some rules). The GPL does not place restrictions
> on fair use but this principle could (IMO) be
Jules Bean wrote:
> > Ah.. but we accept (I think) licenses which prohibit the removal of
> > copyright notices such as the panel.
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can think of one example of this -- the GPL itself:
>
> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3) Is it actually possible for a license (as opposed to a signed contract)
> > to restrict use? My understanding was that copyright law was all about
> > copying.
>
> See the GPL language on this - something like "you haven't signed this
> contract, but
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 01:23:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Jules Bean wrote:
> > > Ah.. but we accept (I think) licenses which prohibit the removal of
> > > copyright notices such as the panel.
>
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This seems to say that if the FSF releases a progr
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that, to remove this copyright notice, you need to create a
> > derivative work. Copyright law grants exclusive control of this to the
> > copyright holder.
> Not true. Try "echo quit|gdb|tail -2 > file". You're free to distribute the
> resultin
What rights you have under copyright do not limit what you can put in a
contract (and the software license is very definitely a contract). You
have the right in a contract to offer certain rights in exchange for
something else. For example, "I will license you the right to make
copies of my work _o
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What rights you have under copyright do not limit what you can put in
> a contract (and the software license is very definitely a contract).
This is irrelevant. I've just bounced over to you a message I wrote
which discusses this issue.
[Unfortunately, I'
Montreal Fri Jan 22 13:45:25 1999
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use LyX as my main word processor, and it's found in Contrib.
Then why send this email? It is only likely to start a long flame war
with the potential result of having LyX removed from Contrib. Is that
what you want?
From: Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I invited Paul to join the discussion on debian-legal.
Gregor,
I communicated the sentiments of _several_ distributions, not just Debian, to
Zope's investor after he contacted me yesterday evening. I'm confident that he
understands the issues, and I thi
Montreal Fri Jan 22 13:58:08 1999
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:42:00AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > >
> > > This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like
> > > XForms, Motif, GTK+, Qt or Win32. A copy of the GNU General Public
> > > License
Navindra Umanee wrote:
>
> Montreal Fri Jan 22 13:45:25 1999
>
> David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I use LyX as my main word processor, and it's found in Contrib.
>
> Then why send this email? It is only likely to start a long flame war
> with the potential result of having LyX remov
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I want is for Debian to hold to the principles it has set itself. I
> feel LyX has some of the same problems as KDE, and that if there was
> agreement on that, that the similar actions should be taken. I feel that
> Debian-legal could discuss it ratio
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, David Starner wrote:
> Navindra Umanee wrote:
> >
> > Montreal Fri Jan 22 13:45:25 1999
> >
> > David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I use LyX as my main word processor, and it's found in Contrib.
> >
> > Then why send this email? It is only likely to start a lon
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What I want is for Debian to hold to the principles it has set itself. I
> > feel LyX has some of the same problems as KDE, and that if there was
> > agreement on that, that the similar actions should be taken. I feel that
> > Deb
Navindra Umanee writes:
> It is only likely to start a long flame war
> with the potential result of having LyX removed from Contrib.
The only reason I can think of to remove Lyx from contrib would be to move
it to main once it has been ported to a free library. Lyx is an excellent
example of sof
David Starner writes:
> Because LyX is under the same License as KDE - straight GPL. I don't
> believe the quoted information from the webpage has any legal standing.
> If it does, then it should be in /usr/doc/lyx/copyright, and all
> /usr/doc/lyx/copyright is is a reference to the GPL. The reason
30 matches
Mail list logo
