On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 04:50:33PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:32:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > People might incorporate DFCLed documentation into a C file. Think of
> > standards documents, or just damn good manuals and damn poorly commented
> > code.
>
> H
On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 01:05 , Branden Robinson wrote:
Here are my current thoughts on Endorsements:
Well, this'll teach me to read all my mail before responding...
I think I misunderstood the top of your last post.
3) [...] Endorsers may wish to communicate to the world (via a
Web
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 00:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
> ("Somebody put CHOCOLATE in my PEANUT BUTTER!" [1])
...
> [1] Yes, I realize this quotation betrays my age.
Congratulations! According to Google, HotBot, and AltaVista, you are the
first person on the internet to ever say that.
I'm not kid
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 00:51, Branden Robinson wrote:
Thank you for making me read GPL section 2, paragraph 2.
> If and while this work is incorporated into a different work
> which is licensed under the GNU GPL, version 2, as published by
> the Free Software Foundation, the repr
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:08:10AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Would people add these to the copyright notice, like they add
> exceptions to link with OpenSSL today? If so, I guess those
> could always be trimmed, too.
The names of endorsers would be listed in the copyright notice, yes.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:40:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Because the Foo manual still exists as an individually copyrighted work.
>
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.
>
> *** EMPHASIS ADDED ***
> If identifiable sections of that work are not d
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:49:02AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 00:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > ("Somebody put CHOCOLATE in my PEANUT BUTTER!" [1])
> > [1] Yes, I realize this quotation betrays my age.
>
> Congratulations! According to Google, HotBot, and AltaVista,
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 23:13, Branden Robinson wrote:
[ I'll respond to the references in their proper place ]
>
> > Well, I don't think we should worry much about Ghana.
>
> I do.
That was supposed to be read with the following two paragraphs, which I
believe would alleviate all of Ghana's pro
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:11:58AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> First Scenario
> ---
>
> Let's assume for a moment that John Doe creates a document, and licenses
> it under the DFCL.
>
> Now, some unrelated party, Dan Smith, incorporates it into a larger
> document.
I assume yo
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 00:22, Nick Phillips wrote:
> It's clear to anyone who bothers to examine the source code that the elements
> you are talking about are insertions and perform functions other than that
> for which the whole thing was intended.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:mozilla-1.0.0$ find -type f -e
I thought about this some more while performing various acts of personal
hygiene[1], and I think I can state my opinion more clearly.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:00:46AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:40:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Because the Foo manual sti
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 04:48, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I thought about this some more while performing various acts of personal
> hygiene[1], and I think I can state my opinion more clearly.
I find a laptop helpful for this ;-)
Now if only they made waterproof laptops, so I could use it in the
ba
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I'm currently packaging a program named isdn2h323. The problem is, that they
have added a kind of advertisement clause to the GPL. ftp-master James Troup
blieves, that this is an extra restriction to section 6 of the GPL.
The exact added text
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:00:46AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> But look at the _next_ paragraph:
>
> > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
> > which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the
> > whole must be on the terms of this License, who
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:48:37AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I think that the GPL uses these paragraphs to distinguish between its
> permissions and its restrictions, and that it says that its restrictions
> do not apply to incorporated other works, but that its permissions do
> always apply
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 04:36:19AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 00:22, Nick Phillips wrote:
>
> > It's clear to anyone who bothers to examine the source code that the
> > elements
> > you are talking about are insertions and perform functions other than that
> > for wh
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 22:28, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If the consumer can apply a transformation to what he recives that
> perfectly restores the original, I don't see a problem.
I assume here that you mean the consumer can, given the source, recreate
whatever he received from the distributor.
> Uh, what the hell are you guys talking about? :)
>
> Get this crap out of my thread. ;-)
Ah, now that we've got you up late, we can get our gold old Branden
back. We've missed you.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 10:38:13AM +0200, Torsten Knodt wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
> I'm currently packaging a program named isdn2h323. The problem is, that they
> have added a kind of advertisement clause to the GPL. ftp-master James Troup
> blieves, tha
GARR.
From: Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
WHAT PART OF
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
If you
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 10:38:13AM +0200, Torsten Knodt wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
> I'm currently packaging a program named isdn2h323. The problem is, that they
> have added a kind of advertisement clause to the GPL. ftp-master James Troup
> blieves, tha
Branden Robinson schrieb:
> 6. Each time you redistribute
We do not *redistribute* isdn2h323 but we *distribute* it. This
paragraph is only interesting for programs like isdngw, which are
modified versions of isdn2h323.
> Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:17:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Let's say Part I is legal. Now, at some point, the GPL sections and the
> > DFCL sections are no longer distinct. The DFCL part can no longer "be
> > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves."
> > Up t
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well, do you or don't you think the material I quoted from the GPL text
> above is applicable in this situation?
Covered, but still unclear. I need to get my head around the difference
between "aggregation" and "derivation", and the duties they impo
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Marco Budde wrote:
> Branden Robinson schrieb:
Don't CC me on list mail.
--
G. Branden Robinson| When I die I want to go peacefully
Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 09:00:31AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Covered, but still unclear. I need to get my head around the difference
> between "aggregation" and "derivation", and the duties they imposes on a
> distributor to determine underlying license on any part he wants to
> release seperately
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > But this is exactly what you're saying, so I'll believe it. Thanks for
> > the clarification.
>
> I am trying to persuade you with reasoning, not force of personality.
Somewhere in between. It's a point of law, so "reasoning" isn't really
the r
Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Branden Robinson schrieb:
>
> > 6. Each time you redistribute
>
> We do not *redistribute* isdn2h323 but we *distribute* it. This
> paragraph is only interesting for programs like isdngw, which are
> modified versions of isdn2h323.
Debian redistri
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't want to see the DFCL used as a weapon against people who haven't
> > > done anything ethically illegitimate.
> >
> > I'm trying
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:46:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> They retain both their copyright and their licensing, yes. The trouble
> is, you have to permit licensing the work under the GPL for it to have
> legally gotten there in the first place, which means anyone who receives
> your DFCL t
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 04:01, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The GNU GPL is not fairy dust. You cannot sprinkle it over a work that
> is under some other license, and change that license. You cannot
> sprinkle it over a work that is in the public domain, and take that work
> out of the public domain.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:22PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> > > would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
> >
> > If I can convert it to the GPL, then I don't c
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 22:28, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > If the consumer can apply a transformation to what he recives that
> > perfectly restores the original, I don't see a problem.
>
> I assume here that you mean the consumer can, given the sou
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 13:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> When the professor got the source to the book, did she not read the
> license? Was the professor not giving access to the source of the
> document? It's not that hard to make an announcement at the beginning
> of class offering the course to any
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Marco Budde wrote:
> Branden Robinson schrieb:
>
> > 6. Each time you redistribute
>
> We do not *redistribute* isdn2h323 but we *distribute* it.
Correct. *Debian* is the party you are asking to *redistribute* it.
Therefore, we must have legal
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:19:22PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:22PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> > > > would permit the omission of the endor
In the History file that serves as a changelog for the latest
version of V.E.R.A., the author included:
Also added a Perl search routine for V.E.R.A. from Andres Soolo . You will find it in the `./contrib' directory of
the distribution. For bug reports please contact Andres.
This scri
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Marco Budde wrote:
> > Branden Robinson schrieb:
> > > Section 6 of the GNU
> > > GPL will apply to Debian and if your license makes it impossible for
> us
> > > to comply with it, as it does, then we will
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 13:05, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Marco Budde wrote:
> > Branden Robinson schrieb:
>
> Don't CC me on list mail.
Don't CC: the list on these mails, please. A private mail to the person
responsible (or better yet, a mention in your .si
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:50:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > They do not limit my right under the license to chop up a GPL program
> > and only reuse parts of it, so long as my use complies with the terms
> > of the GPL -- EVEN IF a part that I'm using is a proper subset of a
> > work tha
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:17:15PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> However, we are familiar with lots of situations where people with a
> poor grasp of the facts create all kinds of problems. DFCL-to-GPL
> "conversion" looks to me like it has the same potential.
That is true. I believe that a DFCL
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:57:34PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> # Andres Soolo writes:
> # "Also, I'd like to contribute this non-interactive tool to look up
> # VERA entries:"
>
> The V.E.R.A. license is:
>
> > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> > un
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 04:27:03PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 13:05, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Marco Budde wrote:
> > > Branden Robinson schrieb:
> >
> > Don't CC me on list mail.
>
> Don't CC: the list on these mails, please. A priv
Picking a few nits, and adding a few more questions.
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 15:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:17:15PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > - What license must I use to license non-trivial modifications to a
> > DFCL document generally?
>
> You can use the DFCL,
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 13:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> > When the professor got the source to the book, did she not read the
> > license? Was the professor not giving access to the source of the
> > document? It's not that hard to make an announcement at the
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The V.E.R.A. license is:
>>
>> > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
>> > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
>> > any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If there isn't a problem with requiring that the professor distribute
> > the source, then there isn't a problem whether the professor distributes
> > one copy or one thousand. Therefore, the whole volu
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 06:22:08PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> The editions of V.E.R.A. that I package are identified as "a
> special GNU edition of V.E.R.A.", and is distributed on ftp.gnu.org.
> The author adopted the GFDL at the request/pressure of the FSF.
Where I come from, pressure do
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> > This should probably be "a charge no more than the cost of physically
> > performing source distribution" rather than "no charge". I would also
> > keep the noncommercial distribution stipulation from t
Woops -- sent this to Branden rather than the list at first.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The GNU GPL is not fairy dust. You cannot sprinkle it over a work that
> is under some other license, and change that license. You cannot
> sprinkle it over a work that is in the public d
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:50:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> These discussions have prompted me to tweak the language just a bit for
> more clarity, however:
>
> When this work is incorporated into a different work that is
>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 09:00:31AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Covered, but still unclear. I need to get my head around the difference
> between "aggregation" and "derivation", and the duties they imposes on a
> distributor to determine underlying license on any part he wants to
> release seperatel
52 matches
Mail list logo
