Paul Hampson wrote:
> Copyright Act 1968 Section 31:
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s31.html
I'm not at all sure that copyright works the same in all countries. I
suppose the related international conventions impose a fair degree of
uniformity, but it may not be per
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:32:27PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
...
>
> Also, one's copyright license may not set conditions on merely executing a
> program. The GNU GPL doesn't attempt to do this so Bloom's statement above
> could be confusing.
>
Note, that in many legal systems now in e
Sorry to followup to myself, but here is another option:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:38:42AM +0100, Jakob Bohm wrote:
...
>
> Mr. Bloom has previously stated (in this thread), that his
> intent is to grant additional rights, such that his library can
> be used in free software which is not under t
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:39:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
> > that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
> > can be made.
>
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> can be gained from rea
It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original
work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like
that:
http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
"(b) The derivative work is given a new name, so that its name or title
cannot be confused with the Work, or with
Hi legal folks!
Is this a condition to move proftpd-ldap in non-free?
I think the additional condition of postcard requesting is a GPL
violation.
Quoted from author's site:
mod_ldap is distributed under the GPL, with an additional explicit
clause to allow linking against OpenSSL.
As of mo
hi everybody
this is the second time:
i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
author define it:
/*
* ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
* with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you
* offer your changes to me so I can possib
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:57:16AM +0100, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> Or how about the Meta-DFSG plus GPL (change to OSD if you do not
> want the DFSG used in this way, see another thread here...).
> This program is free software, you may (the usual GPL boilerplate).
> Additionally as an exception t
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:17, Paolo Ariano wrote:
> hi everybody
>
> this is the second time:
> i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
> author define it:
> /*
> * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
> * with this source as long as I get credi
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> Any hints
are welcome :)
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
> "Russell" == Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> Nahhh. I'm just reading Bruce's commentary to you. He
Russell> edited Debian's members words into the DFSG. Do you
Russell> think he was wrong about the intent of the
Russell> no-discrimination clause?
R
I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round and
round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and overusing
cliches and stock phrases. It sure looks like there's sufficient
interest in the idea of evolving the OSD && DFSG in a common
direction, and maybe even making them
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Now, then, do
> you think Euclid held a copyright in the _Elements_? Did the apostles
> of Jesus hold a copyright in the gospels? If so, when did these
> copyrights expire,
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:13:02PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:06:22PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> >
> > Any hints
>
> are welcome :)
Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
highlighted.
Simon
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Paolo Ariano wrote:
> i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
> author define it:
> /*
> * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
> * with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you
> * offer your changes to me
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Is this a condition to move proftpd-ldap in non-free?
> I think the additional condition of postcard requesting is a GPL
> violation.
Bleh. It's not clear that this use condition has any meaning - the GPL
allows distribution and nothing requ
> "Henning" == Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henning> Scripsit Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people.
>> Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to
>> arbitrarily exclude software from Debian.
Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original
> work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like
> that:
>
> http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
>
> [...]
>
> But what constitutes "new name"?
The point
Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> /me suggests that, in order to avoid inadvertantly becoming aware of a
> possible patent problem, we get spamassassin tuned up to class any list
> mail containing the word "patent" as spam and reject it...
> Am I joking? I'm not sure.
I think you are
Scripsit Paolo Ariano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> /*
> * ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
> * with this source as long as I get credit for my work and you
> * offer your changes to me so I can possibly add them to the
> * "official" version.
> *
> * @author Wayne Rasband
Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> highlighted.
Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
what the author is trying to do is not compatible with claiming it is
GPL'ed - but the reason *why* it's incompati
> "John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0500, Russell Nelson
John> wrote:
>> > But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two
>> documents that > except for a few places are identical; please
>> make a lot of c
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: GPL 2(c)
> This clause of the GPL is still something of a wart. Perhaps a future
> revision of the DFSG would clarify that GPL software is only free if it
> *doesn't* take advantage of this clause.
I agree that it is a wart, but your solution woul
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> BTW can you give some examples of licences, that explicitly say, that
> whole fscking name must be changed, not just version number? Does such
> beasts really exist?
Many components of teTeX come under such licenses. There was a major
flamewar on
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round and
> round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and overusing
> cliches and stock phrases. It sure looks like there's sufficient
> interest in the idea of evolving the OSD && DFS
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > highlighted.
>
> Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
> what the author is trying to do is no
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > highlighted.
>
> Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section? It is clear to us that
> what the author is trying to do is not compatible with claiming it is
> GPL'ed -
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > > highlighted.
> > Um, but what is the appropriate GPL section?
> these terms and conditions. You may not impose any fur
Scripsit Sam Hartman
> Henning> If we, as a project, decide to pull out, say, GNU Emacs,
> Our priorities are our users and free software. If you as a Debian
> developer make a decision that is inconsistent with those priorities
Note "we, as a project".
--
Henning Makholm "Y'
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> > ^^
> > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> > ^^^
The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 09:17, Paolo Ariano wrote:
> hi everybody
>
> this is the second time:
> i'd like to pack a new software (ImageJ) that has no license but the
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:59, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Goerzen writes:
> > Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the
> > consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal,
>
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:22:18PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Yes, but that doesn't bind the author (assuming that he has the sole
> > copyrigt on the program).
>
> It does in a sense--it prevents people from using the GPL and adding
> additional restraints; at least according to this interp
It's strange to me that, in this interests of finding out how many people
are using his module, he'd add a restriction that would immediately cause
a great number of people to stop using it.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:13:02PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > Any hints
>
> are welcome
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
> There is nothing to stop an author making a statement that "You may
> copy distribute and modify this work under the terms of the GPL in
> combination with the following extra conditions, which shall override
> the GPL in cases of conflict".
The author c
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 12:39, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
[GPL (2)(a) stuff snipped]
> I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
> widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. (This is why I no
> longer use
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
> (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
That's news to me. I even asked RMS about it and he said he'd have
to think about it. T
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote:
> Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant
> with (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files
> themselves.
Quoting 2a directly:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you chan
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:21, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
> > (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
>
> That's news to me. I even
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote:
> But Changelogs are what most GNU programs do, anyway.
Yeah, but most[1] GNU programs don't use code from other GNU projects for
which FSF doesn't own the copyright. So for them, the GPL doesn't
apply. [And this clause doesn't really apply to in-project
mo
On Thursday 30 January 2003 03:41 am, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> It seems, that some licences require, that modified versions of original
> work must have new name. For example Design Science Licence is like
> that
> But what constitutes "new name"?
> If I release some poem called "Ode to Buffer O
42 matches
Mail list logo
