[took the bug off the cc list]
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 08:03:24AM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T160640-0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > In that case, I guess Artistic is acceptable. But that is
> > unfortunate, given that this means that we have diverged from the FSF
> > analysis, som
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 12:11:21AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> Did
> we accept the APSL (the other major point of divergence between the
> OSI and the FSF)?
No need to stir up trouble before its time. No one has tried to
get a program under the APSL into Debian, so whether or not the
APSL is DFSG-
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:07:34AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 12:11:21AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > Did
> > we accept the APSL (the other major point of divergence between the
> > OSI and the FSF)?
>
> No need to stir up trouble before its time. No one has tried to
> g
Headers trimmed. The bug can be settled on it's own merits...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:41:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>> >> I recieved this response
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Well, I don't think it's a free license for similar reasons as RMS.
> >Mostly because it's very vauge in places, and references things that
> >it really shouldn't in others. Examples:
>
> I doubt it. RMS's REAL reason is that it isn't his GPL. Look at how many
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> >Well, I don't think it's a free license for similar reasons as RMS.
>> >Mostly because it's very vauge in places, and references things that
>> >it really shouldn't in others. Examples:
>>
>> I doubt it. RMS's
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>
> I doubt it. RMS's REAL reason is that it isn't his GPL.
The real reason is that it's unclear and subject to differing
interpretations. If possible, we should either get a quick note from the
author saying what we want to do would be
John Galt said:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >This statement of freely available, however, also conflicts with the
> >examples given for "freely availableness", such as usenet. Nothing
> >about a usenet posting implies free redistibutability. In fact,
> >Usenet postings are all copyrigh
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>
> >1) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
> >make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to
> >Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a
> >major archive site such as
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>>
>> I doubt it. RMS's REAL reason is that it isn't his GPL.
>
>The real reason is that it's unclear and subject to differing
>interpretations. If possible, we should either get a quick note f
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>John Galt said:
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>> >This statement of freely available, however, also conflicts with the
>> >examples given for "freely availableness", such as usenet. Nothing
>> >about a usenet posting implies free redistibutability
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:00:07PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>
> >John Galt said:
> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >> >This statement of freely available, however, also conflicts with the
> >> >examples given for "freely availableness", such as use
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>>
>> >1) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
>> >make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to
>> >Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modificat
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:00:07PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>>
>> >John Galt said:
>> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>> >> >This statement of freely available, however, also conflicts with the
>> >> >examples giv
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:42:53PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >
> >Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s. The current copyright law
> >is ten years older than that. I don't know exactly when the AL was
> >written, but this would suggest that it postdates the
John Galt said:
> The "copyright by definition" is codified in Berne and the DMCA. Think
> 1990 rather than 1970...
>
http://www.landfield.com/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part2/
Specifically section 2.7. 1988 in the US, earlier (1971, according to part4 of
above) elsewhere in the world, for "copyr
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:40:02PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >>
> >> >1) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
> >> >make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifi
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:42:53PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>> >
>> >Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s. The current copyright law
>> >is ten years older than that. I don't know exactly when the AL was
>> >written, bu
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:02:23 -0700 (MST), John Galt mumbled
disconsolately:
> About the time that Debian was still part of the FSF...
"About" meaning "possibly never?"
The exact phrase used to describe BSD licenses is "non-copyleft free
software licenses." In this instance, "free software" mea
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:45:16PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:42:53PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s. The current copyright law
> >> >is ten yea
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:40:02PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >1) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
>> >> >make them Freely
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:45:16PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:42:53PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>John Galt said:
>> The "copyright by definition" is codified in Berne and the DMCA. Think
>> 1990 rather than 1970...
>>
>
>http://www.landfield.com/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part2/
>
>Specifically section 2.7. 1988 in the US, earlier (1971, according to pa
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:41:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >2. Default copyright was established both in the Copyright Act of 1976
> >> >and the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. The relevant
> >>
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:32:19PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >What's that supposed to mean?
>
> Meaning that from your cite, one cannot be sure that they are.
Would you like to cite some other part of the license, contesting my
interpretation of that?
>
> >
25 matches
Mail list logo
