On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * If you create a database, you have the right to
> > - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database.
> > Obviously, some people want to make
Hi *,
what do you make of that? IRRToolSet is the Internet Routing Registry
Toolset from RIPE containing very useful tools for admins of autonomous
systems. I am pondering packaging it, so I took a look at its license
and found that each source file contains two copyright statements and
licenses.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
>
> Let's play fair now:
>
> >From WordNet (r) 1.7 :
>
> software
>n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules
>and associated documentation pertaining to the operation
>of a compu
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is a very important point. I have stated before that I would not have
serious objections to the FSF issuing a small number of non-free manuals for
a good reason, as it has been doing for 15 years. (Nearly the entire GNU
Project website is 'verbatim copying and di
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > [database protection]
> > > Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> > > -- by virtue of the fact that it
On 2003-08-26 07:55:43 +0100 Joerg Wendland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] But below that is the notice from the old copyright holder
(USC) with a license that only allows 'non-commercial' use and is thus
non-free. See the complete text below. Now is this software DFSG-free
or
not?
It see
Branden Robinson wrote:
> If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being
> grounded on "sweat-of-the-brow" arguments. In actual fact, very little
> "IP law" in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that.
If I ridiculed US law for not supporting database rights, I apologize
Quoting Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> >
> > Let's play fair now:
> >
> > >From WordNet (r) 1.7 :
> >
> > software
> >n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules
> >and associated
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 01:27:41PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's play fair now:
> > >
> > > >From WordNet (r) 1.7 :
> > >
> > > software
> > >n : (compu
Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
^^^
Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you
any longer.
--
Jérôme Marant
Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
>I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be
>considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall
>not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you
>wrote it, and so on.
>There are limits everywher
Richard Braakman wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well to
^-(here I refer to Richard Stallman's argument)
>> programs as it does to manuals!
>>
>> Would you consi
Jerome Marant said:
>Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
> ^^^
>
>Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you
>any longer.
>
>--
>Jérôme Marant
My sincere apologies for the ton
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > So, this license is specific to be used only as "part of a product or
> > programm".
> You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine)
> is based on: 'developed by th
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Nor is "Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe'",
> > but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
> > things that
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:38:01PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> They cannot make any specific person forget, but they have led most US
> journalists to deny our existence, so that most people never find out
> about us.
I don't know about US, but I know that here in Belarus this problem does
no
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
> ^^^
>
> Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you
> any longer.
It is
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:10:35PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wro
Hi,
Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Wouter Vanden Hove
http://www.opencursus.be
http://textbook.wikipedia.org
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
GNU Libc Maintainers
If you wi
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> This phrase read conservatively
>
> ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports
> of clarifications ("BSD, but can't use the original literally") by
> the copyri
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:21:43PM +0300, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> Every? That sounds just like "Noble goal justifies vile means". Even if
> you don't believe that "there is no such Good on Earth that is worth a
> single child's teardrop", can you at least agree that _some_ methods are
> not wort
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:26:57AM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> What about DFSG FAQ draft? Do you think this can be applied to FDL
> documentation?
>
> # Q: Does whether some software is free depend solely on its license?
>
> A: Almost always, but there are rare exceptions. When necessary w
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
> reinvention. For
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> * Copyright requires the protected subject to be "original".
I think that principle is unique to the U.S.; in fact, that's the whole
*point* of this subthread!
--
G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:16:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > So, this license is specific to be used only as "part of a product or
> > > programm".
> > You're missing the key phra
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is
>> essentially "MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product
>> alone."
>
> Got any citations?
>
> The licens
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:32:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> It seems fairly clearly not DFSG-free in the current form, but maybe
> RIPE have some permission to relicense the USC parts. It is probably
> worth seeking clarification.
It's probably good enough for the Release Manager as-is...
--
G.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Nor is "Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe'",
> > > but you can't d
Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being
> > there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software
> > advocacy.
>
> If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG.
> If you have a probl
Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
> > ^^^
> >
> > Considering your attitude,
Anthony Towns :
> You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
> reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they ha
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
> Documentation License?
There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian
seldom bothers with such things. We go years without issuing
non-techn
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 16:28, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being
> > > there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software
> > > advocacy.
> >
> > If we distribute it, it is c
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:48, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Hi,
> Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
> Documentation License?
Wouter, it is my understanding that Debian interprets the Social
Contract and the Free Software Guidelines based upon consensus that
develops upon de
On 2003-08-26 22:28:45 +0100 Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
> distribute something else than software.
Are you deliberately misreading that? Here's the top levels of phrase
structure for you: ((Debian) (is) (100% (free sof
On 2003-08-26 19:48:17 +0100 Wouter Vanden Hove
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Inside the skulls of ftpmasters and release managers. Wrap up well,
as there's no telling what else is lurking in there. It ain't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:24:55AM +0200, Henrion Benjamin wrote:
> I'm just forwading you the annoucement of the demo, but I would like to
> know if webmasters of www.debian.org can consider to participate to the
> online demonstration (see http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/BigDemo27aug and
> http://sw
> Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG.
> > If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the
> > pointless grandstanding.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Software in Debian is 100% free.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Nor is "Not being able
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:37:46 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> > Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> > > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
<...>
>You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
>exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
>for copyright infringement and winnin
Jerome Marant said:
>Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
>distribute something else than software.
>From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English.
("It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing something other than
software" would be correct.)
Perhaps this
44 matches
Mail list logo
