Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it does look like GNU is going to stick with the Invariant sections
> for a while. I would like to humbly (as a non-developer and occasional
> reader of debian-legal) make the following suggestions:
>
> 1. Debian should indicate in its documenta
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As far as I know, the heirs must follow the author's intentions
> > when applying the inherited moral right. They cannot decide
> > for themselves whether *they* like the change, they must guess
> > whether the
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then they're not doing what the law says they must. Not much
> you can do about that, other than hoping the judge will see
> it differently.
The copyright laws in the US do *not* say that the heirs are
restricted to what the author wants.
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 03:42:42PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 06:28:25PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The following licence is used on a number of LDP documents:
> >
> > Please freely copy and distribute (sell or give away) this document in any
> > format. It's requ
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> In my example case, the heirs *think* they are doing what the author
> wants, but they are wrong, because the author is not as bigoted as
> they are.
Isn't that always a problem when you can't ask the person himself
anymore?
> "Not much you can do about that"? Hardl
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you feel your trust has been betrayed, I think you should say so.
> Insisting that your text be removed from the CPP manual is not the only
> tactic at your disposal.
Certainly. If Zack were to ask for his own work (whose copyright is
assigned to the FSF
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Not much you can do about that"? Hardly--you could, for example,
> > *not have the whole bogus concept in the first place*.
>
> Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
> a good idea to have something that preven
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 12:50:38AM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 03:42:42PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 06:28:25PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > >1. Send your derivative work (in the most suitable format such as
> > >sgml) to the LDP (Linux
Hi,
Almost a year and a half on from the original discussion, I've finally
split the doc-linux package into free and non-free components (this is
what the cc'ed discussion from [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the "manifesto
boilerplate licence" refers to). doc-linux-nonfree is waiting for
ftpmaster approv
I understand that Adolf Hitler's copyright in "Mein Kampf" was
acquired by the state of Bavaria, who use it for suppressing the book.
If and when the copyright expires (2015 if the duration is not further
extended; in many EU countries copyright was extended from 50 to 70
years in 1995, with the ef
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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]>
> > > > >
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 Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:25:05AM -0700,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 111 lines which said:
> Since changing the color of curtains violates the rights of an
> architect, it's hard to imagine any significant change to any piece of
> software that would not wreak s
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent
> modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTWARE
> are quite limited, even in Europe.
Right, that's why this is all OT. ;)
What I'm saying is why "authors' rig
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> years in 1995, with the effect that "Mein Kampf" was out of copyright
> for 3 months before disappearing for another 20 years) it will be
> interesting to see whether Bavaria tries to use moral rights to
> further suppress the book, arguing that in this day and age Ado
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
> > a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
> > my work. The implementation sucks greatly though.
>
> We already have
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent
> modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTWARE
> are quite limited, even in Europe.
Moral rights are excluded for software? Can you please give
me a citation for that? As far as I
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
> > > a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
> > > my wo
Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RMS responded:
> > That description is misleading--we are not "headed" anywhere on this
> > issue. We are already there, and we have been there for many years.
> > We have been using invariant sections since the 80s, and we continue
> > to use the
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
> > > a good idea to have something that prevents others from m
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 03:58:36PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
> authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
> of their works. Then they could be made to look like total
So the only way to prevent this is to re
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030512 20:42]:
> > That's why the law has the extra provision that helps me protect my
> > moral rights.
>
> It has a superfluous provision that unnecessarily restricts the author's
> freedom to form contracts. It is as idiotic and misguided as the
> attempts
* Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030512 19:52]:
> > As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent
> > modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTWARE
> > are quite limited, even in Europe.
>
> Moral rights are excluded for software? Can you
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:52:07AM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> I sent a couple of mails to Hans Reiser and Richard Stallman (RMS)
> on the issue of invariant sections (GFDL) and proper attribution (GPLv3?).
[...]
> I wrote:
> I believe that GNU with the GFDL is headed for confrontation
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 11:27:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Right now, I've put all GFDL documents without Invariant Sections in
> main, regardless of the version; if a concrete project-wide decision
> is or has been made on 1.2-no-invariants then please let me know.
debian-legal hasn't reache
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving
> those docs to non-free. It'll mean a few packages from non-free on my
> systems, but if that's what RMS wants it's not a huge deal for me as
> long as they are still available.
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:13:23PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> It's assumed to be a right. Basic thing about rights (at least in German
> law, as far as I understand it) is that rights cannot be transfered.
> You can not tranfer your right to vote, your right to not be hurt nor
> any other r
On Mon, 12 May 2003 22:08:08 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving
> > those docs to non-free. It'll mean a few packages from non-free on
> > my systems, but if that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
> and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the package
> is installed.
> So, from the user point of view, I
Hi folks,
On Mittwoch 07 Mai 2003 18:58, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > you should be able to do a
> > text representation of a FFT or something, I would've
> > thought. Long, and ugly, but editable as text,
>
> That's no better than a he
On Mon, 12 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] J?r?me Marant wrote:
> As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
> and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the package
> is installed.
> So, from the user po
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:30:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 11:27:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Right now, I've put all GFDL documents without Invariant Sections in
> > main, regardless of the version; if a concrete project-wide decision
> > is or has been made
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you don't share my position, that's fine, but you haven't yet
> articulated why.
I have. Multiple times. Someone using your name and imitating your
style of writing rather convincingly have replied to several of those
postings.
Digging in the ar
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, this is entirely reasonable. Natural rights should be unalienable.
> Intellectual property is not property, and all rights pertaining to
> ideas and their expression are artificial rights.
I don't think that this distiction is useful for anythin
35 matches
Mail list logo
