Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Err, who are you arguing against? I do not espouse the position
> above. You do a good job arguing against it, but it is unlikely that
> RMS will read what you wrote... (I'm also not someone you need to
> convince.)
I wasn't taking myself to be argui
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> Your interpretation would make the access-circumvention provision
> almost useless: it would mean it only mattered when preventing access
> to illegally copied works. Which, hey, is a reasonable law. Neat.
No, it would also mean that you can't make
"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have *NEW DATA* to bring to the discussion?
>
> as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are missing
> is a clear working definition to separate out Software, Data, and
> Documentation.
>
> on
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 01:40:56 -0700
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that this is even necessary. Suppose, for example, we
> chose to solve the documentation problem by creating a new archive
> section for documentation. Documentation that meets the DFSG would
> preferably s
Scripsit "John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are missing
> is a clear working definition to separate out Software, Data, and
> Documentation.
> once we do that to our own satisfaction, then we can get on with
> defining the fre
Hello,
I have for some time been lurking during the discussions of the FDL, RFC
issues, and related matters, and I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling
about the consensus that appears to be starting to coalesce around them.
You may note that I am a staunch Free Software advocate as you read
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>> Your interpretation would make the access-circumvention provision
>> almost useless: it would mean it only mattered when preventing access
>> to illegally copied works. Which, hey, is a reasonable
hi everybody
mplayer 0.90-3 is in
deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer ./
and was uploaded to the incoming dir of Debian.
So please review the package and tell me (and the ftp-installer(s))
if this may be fit for Debian
and thanks for the time
--changes in 0.90-3:
the descript
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Problem #2: Double Standards
>
> We have, and continue to, allow information to be distributed with software
> under even more strict terms than the FDL. Examples of these things include
> licenses.
>
> All of the arguments being made about freeness of d
Hi,
I would like to have the list members' opinion on the following
license, which is about to be applied to the data files of an old
adventure game:
~~~
Preamble:
Basically, give this game away, share it with your friends. Don't
remove this Readme, or pretend you wrote it. You can incl
Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to have the list members' opinion on the following
> license, which is about to be applied to the data files of an old
> adventure game:
It's non-free. There's no permission to create a derivative work, or
to distribute such
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:38:43 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have *NEW DATA* to bring to the discussion?
> as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are
> missing is a clear working definition to separate out Software,
>
Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to have the list members' opinion on the following
> license, which is about to be applied to the data files of an old
> adventure game:
[snip]
> At first I had my doubts about paragraph 3, but after having read
> the Artist
* Tore Anderson
> > At first I had my doubts about paragraph 3, but after having
> > read the Artistic license, whose paragraph 5 involves the same
> > restriction while still being DFSG-free, I would assume this is
> > acceptable for inclusion in main. But do comment, legalese is
> >
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 15:15, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * You are permitted to modify the game as you like, and also distribute
>such versions under the same license as the original work, if they are
>clearly marked as being modified versions.
>
> ..would that be okay? (Suggestions on how
* Tore Anderson
> > * You are permitted to modify the game as you like, and also
> > distribute such versions under the same license as the original
> > work, if they are clearly marked as being modified versions.
* Joe Wreschnig
> The GNU GPL version 2 has a clause that words this very
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:08:37PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> may be sold), but using it in things like commercial adventure game
> collections without asking is just playing dirty.
I'm fairly sure that the license does not actually accomplish
this. Presumably it refers to clause 3:
> 3) Y
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 18:44, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Well, it's not really a source+binary distribution, more general
> "data" (compare it with a jpeg wallpaper, for instance). So I don't
> really see any reason to make the distinction. Indeed, the reason why
> upstream doesn't use the Artist
* Joe Wreschnig
> You can GPL a JPEG, or a PDF, or whatever.
Straying a bit off topic now, but this isn't as trivial as it you
make it sound (for JPEG's, at least). It's almost a certainty that
the preferred modifiable form of a digitally created image isn't a JPEG,
but a format specific t
Don Armstrong wrote:
[snip]
If we are to treat documentation any differently than software, we
should first define a ruberic that distinguishes software from
documentation. In all previous discussions, we were unable to do this.
[I cannot do it, but perhaps someone else is able.]
[snip]
What
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:51:47PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> I'm in the process of discussing the issue (and others) with some
> lawyers who have volounteered to help with FOSS. When everything's
> worked out I will publish an analysis of the GFDL. It will be in two
> parts; a short, general o
21 matches
Mail list logo
