On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 02:14, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Another good argument against the GNU FDL.
Not to mention that publishing known false statements, like claiming it
is a GNU Manual or that the FSF publishes copies, is of dubious
legality.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally sign
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 19:11, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> P is not a derived work of GPLLib, but P+GPLLib is likely to be a
> derived work of GPLLib, in which case it is not allowed to distribute
> them together.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I posted the legal definition of a
derivative work in the U
On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 13:38, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
> a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
> >
> > If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
> > may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary
> > softwa
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:03:34AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> It probably leaves a bad taste in the mouth of everyone on this list,
> but yes. You're coming closest to violating DFSG 3, if, for example, the
> license required me to actively notify ABC Software, Inc. of the
> changes.
Some
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Debian interprets "this License" and "herein" to mean the conditions of
> > > the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no more and no l
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> An XML score satisfies all these requirements as a way of
> representing music.
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
recordings*. All the XML scores in the world will not allow me to
recreate a particular sound recording (made with real live musician
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Please respect Debian list policy and my Mail-Followup-To header, and
don't Cc me.
> > An XML score satisfies all these requirements as a way of
> > representing music.
> We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
> r
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > However, you could certainly distribute P on its own if
> > you could reasonably claim that P is useful without GPLLib.
>
> I'll further argue that P is not based upon GPLLib in any meaningful
> manner; it includes absolutely no part of GPLLib.
If P i
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
> > recordings*.=20
> Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document.
> Music, in case you hadn't noticed, is one form
Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The NPL (Netscape Public License; parts of Mozilla still use it) has
> this feature. Check out part V of the Additional Terms:
>V.2. Other Products.
>Netscape may include Covered Code in products other than the
>
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually it does. GNU TLS's OpenSSL compatibility layer is licensed
> under the GPL, not the LGPL, last time I checked. This would cause
> problems for at least some works we distribute.
Indeed it is. I was referring to MySQL in particular, not debi
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Uh... does "Covered Code" include modifications that third parties
> make? If so, then we have a problem.
1.3. "Covered Code" means the Original Code or Modifications or the
combination of the Original Code and Modificati
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > OTOH, I don't think there are any "revisions" you can make to any
> > sound file that you can't also make with a text editor to a suitable
> > text dump of a WAV file.
>
> My point is exactly that *no* way of editing sound files
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A license that says "modify and distribute all you want; keep my name; don't
> add additional restrictions to the license" implicitly requires that you allow
> your modifications to be used proprietarily, since it prevents you from adding
> the GPL's saf
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Why not? A license like the GPL, but with a clause requiring that Foo
>> Inc. have the right to relicense any derivative works as they please
>> is DFSG free?
>
> I'm not sure that's particularly like the
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The NPL (Netscape Public License; parts of Mozilla still use it) has
> > this feature. Check out part V of the Additional Terms:
> >V.2. Other Products.
> >
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:39:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:12:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:50 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > >Or are you wanting to restrict the problem domain to cases where an
> > >interface in
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 06:07:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine
> .orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used. If you don't have a pristine
> .orig.tar.gz anyway, then it's silly to include unused non-free stuff,
> but it's not cause f
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 06:38:14PM +0100, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
> a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
> >
> > If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
> > may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary
> >
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:14:30AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:53:03PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > > Debian interprets "this License" and "herein" to mean
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>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.
And this is the number one lose for this bogus sort of copyright
r
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course they are. The fact that the author intends for his work to
> be free is made very explicit by applying the GPL to it. Since moral
> rights are about protecting the author's intentions with creating the
> work, there cannot, logically, be any
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that the "distortion or mutilation" has to hurt the
> honor or reputation of the author. Here in the Netherlands
> this is the case if the owner of a house decides to put up
> new blinds in a color the architect does not like.
Since pe
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:50:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:58:15PM -0500, 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 interpret
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Of course they are. The fact that the author intends for his work to
> > be free is made very explicit by applying the GPL to it. Since moral
> > rights are about protecting the author's intentions with creating the
>
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Substantial modifications are permitted, and may be distributed, at
> which point the modifier must either pay to ABC Software Inc the sum
> of USD 1,000 for each occurrence of distribution by the modifier, or
> grant to ABC Software Inc a permanent
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Uh... does "Covered Code" include modifications that third parties
> > make? If so, then we have a problem.
> No moreso than we already have with the GPL; just like with the GPL, if
Hi Everyone,
I have written a program that parses the data available here:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/ndc/
and places it into a database.
I am fairly confident that the data itself is public domain
as:
* one organization sells the same data re-packaged for MS
Access
On Thu, 08 May 2003, Elizabeth Barham wrote:
> I have written a program that parses the data available here:
>
>http://www.fda.gov/cder/ndc/
>
> and places it into a database.
Neat.
> My intention is to release a debian package containing Berkely DB
> databases that contain the same dat
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Of course they are. The fact that the author intends for his work to
> > > be free is made very explicit by applying the GPL to it. Since moral
> > > rights are abou
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a requirement to
> make a statement in supporting documentation? We consider both of
> those free.
Advertising clauses only need to be there if you are advertising.
They are also not enforceable in the
Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (I suppose I could sue the FSF for violating its end of the copyright
> assignment contract, but that would be totally counterproductive).
I think it might well be productive to point to the assignment
contract, and insist that your content be removed.
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) My interpretation of the GPL is correct, isn't it? I'm fairly certain on
> this one.
Yes.
> 2) Am I being excessively unreasonable to complain to the authors
>about this GPL violation if it is actually getting in my way and
>making my life i
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 03:36, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
> > recordings*.
>
> Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document.
> Music, in case you hadn't noticed, is one form sound takes.
That's right. You seem to
Just noticed another problem:
A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable
copy, represented in a format ... that is suitable for input
to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety
of formats suitable for input to text formatters. ... A copy
tha
I'm going to try again... I think somehow, we got off on a tangent of
sheet music which blurs the issue. Ignoring my previous message about
not being able to have sound be a transparent copy at all:
I hope we can agree that:
1) Transparent copies of a document are required for
distribu
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> They are also not enforceable in the US.
Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
up with one.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:42:18AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually it does. GNU TLS's OpenSSL compatibility layer is licensed
> > under the GPL, not the LGPL, last time I checked. This would cause
> > problems for at least some works we distribute.
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> >> Why not? A license like the GPL, but with a clause requiring that Foo
> >> Inc. have the right to relicense any derivative works as they
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> I think it might well be productive to point to the assignment
> contract, and insist that your content be removed.
I pulled it out of my files and reread it; the FSF's side of the
agreement is a lot weaker than I remembered. The actual text is
FSF agrees that a
40 matches
Mail list logo
