I asked RMS about the GDB manual. It has two invariant sections, one
of which is a "where to obtain GDB" section; the other is an
introductory tutorial to using GDB. I asked RMS why the latter of
these needed to be invariant. He replied that it shouldn't be
invariant and he'll ask the relevant
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the United States and many other places, copyright registrations are
> allowed for typefaces only under very limited circumstances.
However, a program that spells out how to draw a typeface can be
placed under copyright without any doubt at all.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This license fails DFSG 3 and I would recommend to the author that he
> use the right tool for the job. If he wants trademark protection in the
> Wpoison logo, he should apply for it. Of course, any party that
> attempts to use laws other than copyr
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 12:18:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Right, but the fixed limit proposal would extend beyond just the
> GFDL. Perhaps a developer writes a horrid novella, and puts one short
> bit in each of many packages, marked invariant. They have thus
> subverted the point o
On 20011215T235408-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> (The canonical example here is TeX
> which has such a restriction.)
TeX is already a special case as it really does not have a clear
license, but everyone still treats it as free software.
(This was the case at least when I last looked at it,
> > > # Also, the official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an
> HTML
> > > # hyperlink so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo
> image
> > > # will be directed/linked to the Wpoison home page at:
> >
> > Please keep CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden wrote:
> The lic
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20011215T235408-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > (The canonical example here is TeX
> > which has such a restriction.)
>
> TeX is already a special case as it really does not have a clear
> license, but everyone still treats it as free
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Re-read. It says "image should be inside the hyperlink", not the other
> way around.
You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution
which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo. That's not
trademark protection, it's rather
On 20011216T112830-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license.
Would you please give a reference to it?
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
tutkimusavustaja / research assistant
Jyväskylän yliopisto, tietotek
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20011216T112830-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license.
>
> Would you please give a reference to it?
>From tex.web:
% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved.
% Co
> You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution
> which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo.
I agree that it doesn't make any actual difference with regard to
freeness; I was just refuting Brandens insinuation of ignorance on behalf
of the license writer.
> Tha
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My own interpretation is that it can be distributed in the non-free
> archive. It fails DFSG 3 by not allowing removal of the hyperlink; but as
> long as the hyperlink is there, I don't see any problem for non-free.
The non-free archive contains hyperl
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 12:00:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >From tex.web:
Do we even distribute TeX? We have packages for tetex, which claims
to be GPLed. I didn't look very closely, though.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/res
Thomas wrote:
> The non-free archive contains hyperlinks, and the license requires
> that those hyperlinks include the image.
The license require no such thing.
What it does require is that the image is displayed, hyperlinked (i.e.
placed within hyperlink tags) to the specific page.
It's a very
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The license require no such thing.
> What it does require is that the image is displayed, hyperlinked (i.e.
> placed within hyperlink tags) to the specific page.
Where are you proposing we place that hyperlink?
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 12:00:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > >From tex.web:
>
> Do we even distribute TeX? We have packages for tetex, which claims
> to be GPLed. I didn't look very closely, though.
Tetex's license applies to the spec
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 08:03:21PM +, Sunnanvind wrote:
> > You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution
> > which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo.
>
> I agree that it doesn't make any actual difference with regard to
> freeness; I was just refuting Bran
> > I agree that it doesn't make any actual difference with regard to
> > freeness; I was just refuting Brandens insinuation of ignorance on
> behalf
> > of the license writer.
>
> Your refutation failed. Re-read the license.
Teehee; I originally wrote "I was just attemptiong a refutation of".
Thomas wrote:
> Where are you proposing we place that hyperlink?
I just recieved word that the program appears to be a non-graphical one
and as such, the placement of the hyperlink is indeed a problem, the
burden of solving which I'd prefer to place on the copyright holder.
Conclusively, an inq
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:54:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This license fails DFSG 3 and I would recommend to the author that he
> > use the right tool for the job. If he wants trademark protection in the
> > Wpoison logo, he should
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 07:34:42PM -0500, David Coe wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's the first part of that paragraph
> that I'm worried about, as regards the ftp sites:
>
> * 4. Any web site or other electronic service that offers ispell for
> *download or other electronic transfer as
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 04:41:59PM +, Sunnanvind wrote:
>
> > > > # Also, the official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an
> > HTML
> > > > # hyperlink so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo
> > image
> > > > # will be directed/linked to the Wpoison home page at:
22 matches
Mail list logo
