-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I have a question concerning about openssl issue. I am packaging one
software, which I hope to qualify to debian soon. One issue arose in my mind
and I tried to find answers from mailinglists but I didn't find clear answer.
progra
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Pasi Savilaakso wrote:
> I have a question concerning about openssl issue. I am packaging one
[...]
> Question is simple. How must the software be licenced or changed, if any,
> so that it can be accepted to debian? would licencing it under LGPL help?
> I would like to
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:34:36PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Can you explain the above? I do not see why and in which way the
> "Droit d'auteur" system is more hostile to free software. There is
> currently a lot of lobbying in Europe and in the world against this
> "Droit d'auteur" syst
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:34:36PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
> Can you explain the above? I do not see why and in which way the
> "Droit d'auteur" system is more hostile to free software.
Since you did not reply, I take the liberty,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:40:22AM -0500,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 58 lines which said:
> > I strongly object: Great Britain and its former colonies are not the
> > majority of the world, whatever your criteria (number of inhabitants,
> > GNP, etc) are.
>
> I str
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 07:50:45PM +1200,
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> I guess the reason for that opposition is because it empowers the
> original, human, author in such a way that the large publishing company
> cannot possibly disenfranchise him
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:43:24AM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 74 lines which said:
> spreading of this FUD, to explain why there is no incompatibility
> between the "droit d'auteur" and the common law's copyright system.
Our smart readers certainly fixed
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Differences: as far as free software is concerned, the big difference
> between the two systems seems to be that, under the "Droit d'auteur",
> the author has a "moral right" which can *not* be waived or granted to
> anyone else.
We already have "OT" in
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:21:41PM +0100,
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
> We already have "OT" in the subject, so may I ask whether this "moral
> right" ceases with the death of the author,
For non-software, it was 50 years after the death of
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > We already have "OT" in the subject, so may I ask whether this "moral
> > right" ceases with the death of the author,
>
> For non-software, it was 50 years after the death of the author, it is
> now 70 (corporations lobbied a lot for that). For softwar
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200,
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
> ?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of
> the "invariant" or "cover" options are exercised.
Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *wi
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:34:36PM +0200,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 30 lines which said:
>
> But it is not a real problem. Under the "droit d'auteur", the author's
> right over *software* is quite limited, (unlike other work, such as
> books). For instance
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For non-software, it was 50 years after the death of the author, it is
> now 70 (corporations lobbied a lot for that). For software, I'm not
> sure.
Since there's been a lot of talk about the difficulty in making a
distinction between software and
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any
> Invariant or Cover is indeed free and has no problem being distributed
> in "main"?
I believe this is pretty well agreed.
However, realize that if you release a work under the GF
Scripsit Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > ?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of
> > the "invariant" or "cover" options are exercised.
> Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any
> Invaria
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We already have "OT" in the subject, so may I ask whether this "moral
> right" ceases with the death of the author, or whether a hostile
> descendent can use it to prevent reproduction of the author's work?
FUD. Moral rights do not allow a hosti
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>sub 2. The work must not be changed or made available to the public
> in a way or in a context that violates the author's literary or
> artistic reputation or character.
>
>sub 3.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> But it is not a real problem. Under the "droit d'auteur", the author's
> right over *software* is quite limited
Is this the basic point by which "moral rights" do not prevent software
from being free? They're not generally applied to software?
S
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 02:07:46PM -0400, Stephen Ryan wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. FWIW, I pointed this out
> during the comment period; the FSF basically called me a troll and
> said that I didn't understand what I was talking about for pointing it
> out, so I doubt they're g
Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > And I don't think that the author of a piece of software has any
> > "literary or artistic reputation or character" connected with it.
> You don't? I think that artistic reputation is among the common reason
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 12:14:00AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > And I don't think that the author of a piece of software has any
> > > "literary or artistic reputation or character" connected with it.
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > And I don't think that the author of a piece of software has any
> > > "literary or artistic reputation or character" connected with it.
> Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You don't? I think that artistic reputation is among the comm
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Any chance you'd care to comment on the underlying question of whether
> Debian should or should not accede to the FSF's claim that GPL
> modules for interpreted languages demand GPL scripts?
I think he's too busy taking over the world to do t
On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 15:22, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
^^^
> Uhh, I didn't know that the IETF issued RFCs in the future. Perhaps you
> meant April 2003?
Might have something to do with <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
or the effect of that on me :-D
signature.asc
Description: This is a d
On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 18:59, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This appears to represent a consensus view of Debian:
> * Some people believe that immutable sections are not acceptable in a free
> document,
Aye.
> but a majority of Debian seems to think that immutable sections are
> free provided they
On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 23:47, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> As a final note, 'moral rights' are *not* 'copyrights', and a copyright
> license should not attempt to have anything to do with them, any more than it
> should have anything to do with patent rights, design rights, or trademarks!
You are
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 12:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
>sub 2. The work must not be changed or made available to the public
> in a way or in a context that violates the author's literary or
> artistic reputation or character.
So, I assume that if a work which has artistic or literary
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:58, Alex Romosan wrote:
> in
> no way, shape, or form do i think anybody should have the right to
> edit somebody else's political statement.
Why? I can certainly see why they shouldn't be able to edit someone
else's political statement without clearly noting they have don
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 20:09, Alex Romosan wrote:
> wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an infinite number of
> monkeys, at an infinite number of keyboards will eventually define all
> that is software...
So? That's true of any set of works composed of a finite set of
elements. Sit them
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 19:34, Alex Romosan wrote:
> i've read the DFSG now a
> million times and all i can see is references to software and source
> code. it doesn't say anything about documentation,
Nor does the Social Contract.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
> so if it isn't code, and it isn't used to generate
> code, or doesn't affect the build and run-time of a
> program, then it ain't software.
OK, now define code.
Let's try an example. PostScript is a programming language. It is
Turing-complete (w/ the exception of finite resources in prac
31 matches
Mail list logo
