On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In the US, I could mutilate your work, but I couldn't pass it off as
> > yours (that would be misrepresentation, possibly fraud). If you were
> > alive, I couldn't distort
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:25:34PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Branden mentioned:
> >In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's my understanding
> >that it *is* a defense in the U.S.
>
> In fact, I believe the burden of proof in the US is on the plaintiff to
> *prove* that the alleg
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their licenses?
> (without being pissed of, that is).
I'm not sure "GNU people" need to be convinced. The only person I know
of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FD
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Not consistently. The GNU FDL is a licensing initiative that is
> apparently intended to be used for all FSF documentation. The
> traditional GNU documentation license did not always include Invariant
> Sections.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:56:17PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >When some popular enough software becomes non-free, there is very often
> >a free fork which gets maintained. If that happens to some non-free
> >documentation as well, that's fine, but I don't think you will find
> >many volunte
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> > Distribution
> > You can freely redistritbute this software as long as
> > all files are included. The files in this package are
>
> This is "freeware"; it is acute
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 01:52:57AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 02:41, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Colin Watson helpfully provided this information in a recent mail:
>
> >4. The location of the original unmodified document be
> > identified.
>
> That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building
> is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or
> copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.
And I should cross-reference every line in the source against every
existing patent.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:14:44PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> Dave Turner, the FSF's ``GPL Compliance Engineer'' suggests including
> the DOE text in the SAME FILE as the GPL will be sufficient to honour
> the DOE's requirement while also not modifying the GPL. The text should
> note that it is no
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> > There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
> > been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in
> > the licence then
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:39:22AM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.
> And I should cross-reference every line in the source against every
> existing patent.
[...]
What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the repl
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:40:01PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Yes, which is why European copyright law is fundamentally opposed to
> free speech.
There isn't harmony among all European jurisdictions in matters of
copyright, so this statement seems overbroad.
> This basis for copyright is e
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:56:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> > > Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
> > > respect?
> >
> > We do not ignore any patent.
>
> Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,1
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:35:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please do not discourage people from using this list for one of its
> intended purposes.
If I can be discouraged from posting by a well-deserved smack, I don't
belong here.
> If you feel this person should not have passed the New
Hi Branden Robinson,
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
>> > There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't
>> > been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:46:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > Digging in the archives turns up that it has not always been you who
> > > made the false claim that GPL+mor
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 01:04:08PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I am specifically addressing the case where:
[...]
I'm afraid I cannot come up with very much to add to your analysis.
I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL
> What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies
> from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings?
I wrote it before I read them, sorry.
Anyhoo, I'm still trying to get a reply to my original mail.
--
Dariush Pietrzak,
She swore and she cursed, that sh
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 19:42, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:14:44PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> > Dave Turner, the FSF's ``GPL Compliance Engineer'' suggests including
> > the DOE text in the SAME FILE as the GPL will be sufficient to honour
> > the DOE's requirement while als
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 03:16:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:56:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590
> > to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.)
>
> Huh? What? XOR cursor? What's that?
I ha
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:27:41PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> This is a good clarification. However if you recheck what I wrote above
> you'll see I specifically mentioned "permission to do something covered by
> copyright law". I had in mind the activities covered by copyright law like
> distribu
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:27:27AM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies
> > from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings?
> I wrote it before I read them, sorry.
> Anyhoo, I'm still trying to get a reply to
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:03:10PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 03:16:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Huh? What? XOR cursor? What's that?
>
> I haven't read the patent (legalese gives me headaches), but I know that
> "XOR" is an abbreviation for "eXclusive Ov
En réponse à Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their
> licenses?
> > (without being pissed of, that is).
>
> I'm not sure "GNU people" need to be convinced. The only per
Hi again.
*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: "It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard the software as
absolute
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Does this "clear" implication extend to documentation released
> >> under a Free licence? Does this "clear" implication extend to
> >> literary, visual arts, or audio works released under a Free lice
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
> > numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
> > have no intrinsic artistic character that could pos
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their licenses?
> > (without being pissed of, that is).
>
> I'm not sure "GNU people" need to be convinced. The only person I kno
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I
> > did not construct them.
> Which arguments?
The ones IN MY MESSAGE!
> You keep saying they exist
I keep gi
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:28:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> En réponse à Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'm not sure "GNU people" need to be convinced. The only person I
> > know of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL is
> > Richard Stallman.
>
> (Georg Greve doe
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 10:16:00AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > I'm not sure "GNU people" need to be convinced. The only person I know
> > of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL is Richard
> > Stallman.
>
> What about the thread you started here:
>
> http://lists.debian.o
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:15:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Is it any help to cite the libreadline/libeditline case? Readline is a
> > > GPLed library authored by the FSF. Editline is a BSD-licensed clone
> > > (with a limited feature set) developed by people who weren't happy with
>
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:27:27AM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies
> > from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings?
> I wrote it before I read them, sorry.
> Anyhoo, I'm still trying to get a reply to
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
> > > numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > > This is horrid. I believe quite firmly that my work has an intrinsic
> > > artistic character.
> > Sure. But do you believe that the intrins
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In so far as *any* work has artistic character that can be so
> > violated, yes.
>
> Does that mean that you don't release your programs under a free
> license, or that you never thought about the license you use, or that
> you consider your choice
Hi Nicolas Kratz,
> Hi again.
>
> *groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
> software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
> original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
> they say: "It's OK to build on top of our work.
Is the FSF willing to dual-license manuals that previously had no
invariant sections at all, such as _Debugging with GDB_, under the GNU
FDL and the traditional GNU documentation license simultaneously?
I don't see a reason to do so, but I won't absolutely rule it out.
Finally, wo
> In the past, some of our manuals included invariant sections and some
> did not. Today that is still the case. However, in the past we
> needed an ad hoc license to have invariant sections. What changed
> with the GFDL is that it is a single license that covers both cases.
Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't
free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to
believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license.
The key question is: is the FSF prepared to abandon its use of
non-free licenses for manuals?
That qu
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't
> free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to
> believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license.
>
> The key question is: is the FSF prepared to abando
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Finally, would you consider a manual that used the GNU FDL -- or claimed
> to do so -- which marked a non-Secondary Section as Invariant to be
> Free as in freedom?
>
> No, it is not free. If any GNU package contains such a manual,
> ple
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
> first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
> definition of free software which is different from ours. We also
> disagree about Debian's practice of dis
43 matches
Mail list logo
