Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Brian Nelson
For those that haven't read the license in question, here it is: This english word list is comes directly from SCOWL (up to level 65) (http://wordlist.sourceforge.net/) and is thus under the same copyright of SCOWL. The SCOWL copyright follows: The collective work is Copyright 2000 by Kevin Atki

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2002-11-04 Thread Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:51:50AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > No it doesn't. > > The original copyright applies to the original work. > > The translation's copyright applies to the translation. > > I'm afraid y

debian cd-image mirrors and US export restrictions

2002-11-04 Thread nighty
Hi for several weeks now I am dealing with the different methods of downloading the official cd images of the debian distribution. The hundred of mirrors containing the debian packages are clearly separated into those, which are located in the US, and those, which are not, because of the non-u

Re: off-topic discussion about permissions and promises

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The way I read the GPL it is clearly a promise: I promise that *if* > > you agree to my conditions about, e.g., not demanding an NDA from > > people you distribute the code to, *then* - and not before - I

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:51:50AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I'm afraid you are quite wrong. A translated work is a product of both > > the original author and the translator, and both have an independent > > copyright. >

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 11:15:36PM -0500, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > Thus I will repeat my argument once again. But, this time I would like I > response to the points I made and by the end of our debate I would like a > definite answer on what should be done, if anything, to resolve the > problem.

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2002-11-04 Thread Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:58:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Show me where the international law says so. > > That has been pointed out several times: The Berne Convention (Paris > text 1971, English version), article 2, section 3: Yes. I did point it out. > > | (3) Translations,

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:58:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > | (3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other > > | alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as > > | original works wi

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Probably, yes. I have decried again and again the absurdity of some of > our European developers' opinion (and that of RMS) when it is logically > and consistently applied. They apparently don't want to hear any of it. You apparently don't want to

License question

2002-11-04 Thread Michael Meskes
Hi, I'm not really used to reading english language licences but I have been asked if JasPer (http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/) would be able to make it into Debian. Since I'm sure someone of you knows much better than I do, is this licence free enough or isn't it? Thanks. Michael -- Mi

Re: License question

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm not really used to reading english language licences but I have been > asked if JasPer (http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/) would be able > to make it into Debian. Since I'm sure someone of you knows much better > than I do, is this licence fr

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Brian Nelson
Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not subscribed to d-l. Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [snip] >> Probably. I've tried to argue that it's impossible to plagiarize that >> which is unoriginal, > > Sev

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread David Starner
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:40:06AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > Alright, then consider this. Since a word list in a dictionary has a > questionable copyright, it must be removed from a dictionary. Then, > people notice some common words no longer exist in the dictionary, so > they add them. Even

Re: cupsys + libssl + libgnutls = confusion.

2002-11-04 Thread Jeff Licquia
On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 01:02, Andrew Lau wrote: > I just looked at that > cupsys-1.1.15/config-scripts/cups-openssl.m4 and I find no mention of > GnuTLS in there at all. Then I took at look at debian/rules and > noticed that cupsys isn't even built with SSL or TLS enabled. > > ./confi

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Brian Nelson
What a completely useless response. You completely missed the point of my post. David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:40:06AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: >> Alright, then consider this. Since a word list in a dictionary has a >> questionable copyright, it must be

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not > subscribed to d-l. Yeah. Other people complain vehemently unless I send my replies to debian-legal and only debian-legal. I do try my best. However, my little flamewar with Brande

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread David Starner
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:34:50PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > It was a scenario to consider, which was completely possible. I didn't > suggest it would happen in this particular case. What if the offending > word list contained only the words "the, if, and". Of course those > words would be im

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It was a scenario to consider, which was completely possible. I didn't > suggest it would happen in this particular case. What if the offending > word list contained only the words "the, if, and". Then it would be every bit as copyrightable as the fol

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Kevin Atkinson
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 11:15:36PM -0500, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > Thus I will repeat my argument once again. But, this time I would like I > > response to the points I made and by the end of our debate I would like a > > definite answer on what s

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Brian Nelson
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not >> subscribed to d-l. > > Yeah. Other people complain vehemently unless I send my replies to > debian-legal and only debian-legal. I

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Kevin Atkinson
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Scripsit Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not > >> subscribed to d-l. > > > > Yeah. Other people complain vehemently unless I se

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Jeff Licquia
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:54, Henning Makholm wrote: > Man, you're way out. Some people (not all developers) point out that > the Database Directive exists. Not a word has been said about it being > "supreme" in any way. It exists. That is all. It that so har to grasp? Since we acknowledge that it

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Brian Nelson
Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote: > >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Scripsit Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> >> Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not >> >> subscribed to d-l. >> >

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:54, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Man, you're way out. Some people (not all developers) point out that > > the Database Directive exists. Not a word has been said about it being > > "supreme" in any way. It exists. That is all. It t

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > However, this "license" contains the same questionable clause as the > aspell-en license: > Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package > can also be freely copied, distributed, modified, and used for > personal, educational

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Kevin Atkinson
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote: > However, this "license" contains the same questionable clause as the > aspell-en license: > > Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package > can also be freely copied, distributed, modified, and used for > personal, educational

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Kevin Atkinson
On 4 Nov 2002, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > However, this "license" contains the same questionable clause as the > > aspell-en license: > > > Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package > > can also be freely copied, distribu

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote: > > However, this "license" contains the same questionable clause as the > > aspell-en license: > > Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package > > can also be freely copied, distribut

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Brian Nelson
Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 4 Nov 2002, Henning Makholm wrote: > >> Scripsit Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > However, this "license" contains the same questionable clause as the >> > aspell-en license: >> >> > Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in t

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Kevin Atkinson
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote: > Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Um no. This is not a statement of rights. It is merely an assessment of > > how the DEC word list author views the situation. He assigns no > > additional copyright to his work. > > Who holds the copyri

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

2002-11-04 Thread Brian Nelson
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Well, the idea was that you glance at the word list, maybe remove a word >> or two, and then copyright it for yourself. Should take no more than 5 >> minutes. > > No, it doesn't work that way. It would still be freeriding on the > original author's c

Apple Public Source License and more

2002-11-04 Thread Jens Schmalzing
Hi, I am packaging the Mac-on-Linux emulator mol, which is itself GPLed. Recently, it has become capable of booting both Mac OS and Linux on its virtual machine and therefore was moved from contrib to main. Now the question has arisen whether some of the low-level drivers that mol includes should

Re: Apple Public Source License and more

2002-11-04 Thread Steve Langasek
Hello, On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:22:05AM +0900, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > 2. Apple Public Source License >A number of drivers are adapted from Darwin and were released under >the Apple Public Source License (APSL). More specifically, version >1.2 applies, which to my knowledge was c

Out of Office AutoReply: W32.Klez.E removal tools

2002-11-04 Thread fanmas
We acknowledge your e-mail. Thanks. Sorry we are out for marketing. We'll respond to you soon. Thank You.

Liburan \"BOMB\"-Bali Obral Murah-Buanget

2002-11-04 Thread News
Title: Paketrupiah.com indo.com CRM - Mailing List Management *** The following message is a paid advertisement brought to you by Indo.com. If you need to unsubscribe, follow the instructions at the bottom of the message. if you have difficulty readin

Aspell-en's questionable license

2002-11-04 Thread Brian Nelson
Richard, It has come to the attention of debian-legal that the aspell-en package is licensed under questionable terms. In particular, aspell-en uses the "DEC Word List," which contains the following notice: (NON-)COPYRIGHT STATUS To the best of my knowledge, all the files I used to build th