Hi!
I think we all remember the controversy around pornview's introduction
into Debian because of it's name. It's currently in the archieves but
there are reasons to believe pornview is infringing the copyright
(and open source ethics) of another image viewer also in our archives.
GImageView.
Bot
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Microsoft takes a bunch away, with the case of qmail, you *didn't*
> purchase anything, and you have no rights to copy *anything*--to even
> *get* the first copy--except under the terms of the license.
Do all download sites force you to read the licence
Hello,
What is the list's opinion of this entry in the FSF's GPL FAQ?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat
Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary
executables are "ju
Hello, ...
Some time ago i asked a question about a driver containing proprietary
closed source code.
I now got a licence proposal from Bewan :
Program code and documentation are
(C) Copyright 2002 BeWAN systems
All rights reserved.
This package is free soft
Scripsit "Oliver M. Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Both softwares are GPL, the fact that Pornview uses a lot of
> GImageView's code verbatim or with modifications per se is not a
> problem, but Pornview has stripped the original copyright notices
> and also doing things like s/GImageView//g from va
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 20:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Courts care not about the technical details of *how* you copy, but the
> > fact that you copy. You cannot copy qmail *at all* if you are making a
> > modified binary with it. This means you
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Microsoft takes a bunch away, with the case of qmail, you *didn't*
> > purchase anything, and you have no rights to copy *anything*--to even
> > *get* the first copy--except under the terms of the l
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
> I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary
> executables are "just data" to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary
> Unices have always gone out of t
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
> > C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
> > punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
> > compiling it and running it.
>
> If
"Oliver M. Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we all remember the controversy around pornview's introduction
> into Debian because of it's name. It's currently in the archieves but
> there are reasons to believe pornview is infringing the copyright
> (and open source ethics) of another
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
> > I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary
> > executables are "just data
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:58:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> Program code and documentation are
> (C) Copyright 2002 BeWAN systems
> All rights reserved.
>
> This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the G
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
> > > I would think they are "just data" in the same
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
> > > C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
> > > punished merely for downloading the tar ball
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
> > > I would think they are "just data" in the sam
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> > the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
> > with a
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications under
> section 3 of the GPL. But that is only for "object code or executable
> form". Debian is distributing it under section 2. Furthermore, the
> thing that Debian distributes doesn't ha
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> > the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, if it's the same "I" who do all four steps, some argument could
> probably be made that I am in fact infringing on the original
> software's copyrigt, under the "it's the intended end result that
> matters" doctrine. However, if the steps are done
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:49:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> > the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
> >
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
> > > > C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
> > > > punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
> > > > compiling it and run
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 01:20:36PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:58:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >
> > Program code and documentation are
> > (C) Copyright 2002 BeWAN systems
> > All rights reserved.
> >
> > This package is fr
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:48:29AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > What? How?
>
> Because ftp.gnu.org doesn't require you to read the license either,
> but does hold you to its restrictions.
Are you talking about the GPL here? The one that says, "You are not
required to accept this Licens
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> > > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> > > the GPL that states unequivocally
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, if the steps are done by different parties, it will be
> > difficult to point to an individual party who is actually in
> > violation.
> What establishes "cahoots"? Well, basically, anyon
> For example, the one who ports the program to the
>proprietary language may do it out of honest desire to make some good
>free software available in what he sees as an exciting new
>environment.
How does this differ from, say, Emacs on Windows? I'm sure that Emacs
has been extended to do some in
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:00:27PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2. Section 3 lets
> you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not allowed
> in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that can not be
> licensed under the G
The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive
is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so)
The Q Public License Version 1.0
Copyright (C) 1999 Trolltech AS, Norway.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute this license document.
The intent of this license is to establish freedom to share and
28 matches
Mail list logo
