On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:59:33PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The copyright file should have the license that applies to the work. Not a
> "read the copyright file and apply this patch" statement in the README file
> (or worse, in about.html on the author's website, or in an email message)
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 06:21:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
>
> The branden dodges your magical sigh. The branden attacks you with a
> slew of words! The branden misses!
Ridicule does nothing to help your argument.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:00:48AM -0400,
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
> Since there's been a lot of talk about the difficulty in making a
> distinction between software and non-software, do you know how the law
> you're referring to makes this dist
subscribe
While looking at the game chromium came to me the idea of taking some of
the sound effects and loops for other unrelated tasks, so i skimmed
through readme and copyright files. Since only the license for the whole
game is there (the same that is in the upstream sources), i've assumed
that the indiv
I investigated the situation with the GDB manual. It has two
invariant sections, entitled Free Software and Free Software Needs
Free Documentation. Both sections are secondary.
> 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 distributing and recommending
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:03:31AM -0400,
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
> So we had to search for ways to make sure that our message saying
> non-free software is wrong would at least be present in the GNU
> packages that they redistribute. We did
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
>> should either use the "normally part of your OS" exception, or if
>> distributed with GNU grep be itself available und
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes no sense to apply the same standards to political and legal
> text as to technical material. Ethically they are different
> situations. Software and documentation are functional works--they
> exist to do a job. The users have a right to con
Le ven 23/05/2003 à 14:04, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> I investigated the situation with the GDB manual. It has two
> invariant sections, entitled Free Software and Free Software Needs
> Free Documentation. Both sections are secondary.
That doesn't make the issue go away. An invariant section i
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
> > example, I protested that the FSF's acceptance of invariant sections
> > contradicte
--- "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> からのメッセ
ージ：
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
>
> > This approach means that authors will be forced to
> accept
> > any kind of modifications, even those that
> directly go against
> > their artistic wishes. The US system thin
--- "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> からのメッセ
ージ：
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
>
> > Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud
> Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > > > The motivation for making them unrevokable is
> to prevent
>
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It makes no sense to apply the same standards to political and legal
> text as to technical material. Ethically they are different
> situations. Software and documentation are functional works--they
> exist to do a job. The users have a right to co
* Kurt D. Zeilenga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> s/license/complete copyright notice/
>
> That is, read the whole COPYRIGHT file (and then read some more).
Very well, I've done so. The results of my work bring up a number of
questions, perhaps opening up a larger can of worms than was expected.
I
On Fri, 23 May 2003 12:01:12 -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Frankly, this whole episode saddens me tremendously. I have the
> utmost respect for you and the work you've done, but I simply can't
> agree with you on this issue. It has always been very comforting to
> know that you were out there,
Jaime E . Villate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
> > > example, I protested that the
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >
> >> I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
> >> should either use the "normally part of your OS" exce
Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
>> >> sho
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:01:12PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Philosophically, that speech isn't functional is controversial claim.
It's not functional for Derrida and others of his ilk.
For most other people, it certainly is. You'd better hope the speech
of, say, air traffic controllers is
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le ven 23/05/2003 à 14:04, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> > I investigated the situation with the GDB manual. It has two
> > invariant sections, entitled Free Software and Free Software Needs
> > Free Documentation. Both sections a
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 19:37, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Philosophically, that speech isn't functional is controversial claim.
>
> It's not functional for Derrida and others of his ilk.
>
> For most other people, it certainly is. You'd better hope the speech
> of, say, air traffic controllers is
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I agree with the stance that this documentation is not, in
> fact, Free, I'd like to point out that the GFDL does not reflect any
> change in RMS's stance: the Emacs manual has always been licensed
> with invariant sections, for instance. Richard
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 03:08:36PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > So we had to search for ways to make sure that our message saying
> > non-free software is wrong would at least be present in the GNU
> > packages that they redistribute. We did this by putting invariant
> > political stateme
A number of people have said some intemperate things in this thread,
but I really think that this comes down to a matter of 90%
miscommunication, and 10% differences in circumstances. I believe
that a meeting of minds should be possible, since we share the exact
same goal here: WHAT IS BEST FOR FR
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is* a
barrier, Debian *can* be used for real work and not just an exercise in
ivory-tower masturbation.
Well, I don'
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 09:52 AM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Let's take a concrete example: apache-ssl. In particular, it's
postint.
It uses "adduser", which is under the GPL. It also uses update-rc.d,
also under the GPL. So, as above, we have to say the postinst is
available under the GPL. Ho
>./libraries/libldap/os-local.c
> OpenLDAP Foundation - OpenLDAP Public License
> Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT
> DISTRIBUTABLE
> PADL Software Pty Ltd - No Statement
The intention was for this file to be distributable under the terms
of the OpenLDAP Public
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Frost
> Of those 15 licenses there are a few questions when it comes to GPL
> interaction. In the UoC license (Regents of the University of
> California Berkley) there is the infamous 'advertising
Hi Howard,
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 07:26:06PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Frost
>
> > Of those 15 licenses there are a few questions when it comes to GPL
> > interaction. In the UoC license (R
31 matches
Mail list logo
