On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +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 winning on the grounds of independent
> > reinven
GNU CVS repository, emacs/man/emacs.texi, revision 1.64
The following two changes are made in this revision:
-to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
+to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
and
-(which makes passes at compilers) written
+(which makes pas
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Heh. I just now realized, that false accusation that GFDL puts
> additional restrictions to the user is the root of major part of all
> that anti-GFDL hype.
Whether or not it's false is immaterial.
What is material is that the GFDL does not grant en
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:33:46PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I got the following email back from Michael. So with the clarification
> below that it is not allowed to use the JPEG-2000 part of the code for
> non-standards based work make it non DFSG free? If so is there anyway to
> make it DFSG
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> > The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples,
> > offers a trade. Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU
> > FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade
> > him some permissions in excha
We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example.
> That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then
> either you've copied, or there's a lack of ori
I propose something like the following as an addition to the Debian web
pages, at the bottom of http://www.debian.org/intro/free. I offer this
up for revision and use by the Debian community, or anyone else.
Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
project's decision
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
> > wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the
> > manuals out now.
>
> I don't mean to pick on you
=== 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.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is
=== 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.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is n
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law.
No, any given work may have slightly different restrictions in
different domains of copyright law, but from looking at a license to
see whether it tries to restrict the user or free the user, it's
still no
Andreas Barth wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind.
Actually, the DSFG _was_ made with documentation in mind.
Bruce Perens wrote:
> I intended for the entire contents of that CD to be under the rights stated
> in the DSFG - be they software, do
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 08:35]:
> I propose something like the following as an addition to the Debian web
> pages, at the bottom of http://www.debian.org/intro/free. I offer this
> up for revision and use by the Debian community, or anyone else.
> [ put on the web pages "G
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 23:29, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
> Your upper case was so convincing, that I go to www.dict.org to check
> once more, what is limitation.
> So, I do not get your point, is there a *limitation* on redistributing a
> modified version as a proprietary product? Or you can do
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-28 02:10]:
> Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
> project's decision on this matter. This will help their psychological
> problem. ;-)
It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on that
topic i
Quoting Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I propose something like the following as an addition to the Debian web
> pages, at the bottom of http://www.debian.org/intro/free. I offer this
> up for revision and use by the Debian community, or anyone else.
>
> Motivation: some people seem t
Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be
> Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-secondary when
> distributed as part of Debian GNU/Whatever?
There are even some immutable files in base-files that are obvi
Anthony Towns writes:
> Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
> example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
> expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
> originality in the work to start with.
I thought I'd been following this discussion, bu
Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on
> that topic if want to spread even more FUD as there is already about
> it.
For what it's worth, I think the "discussion" on d-l will end only
when the participants die of exhaustion.
* Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030828 05:12]:
[...]
> 4. Request the patch from the revision containing the licence change to
>the HEAD.
> c. This patch is an *entirely*separate* work to the documentation
> file(s) it modifies.
[...]
>ii. The patch file includes no
On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind. [...]
Please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
for more information on what was in mind when DFS
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:50:09 -0400 (EDT)
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be fair to say that Debian has decided that the GFDL is not
> free according to the DFSG. This opinion has only been getting
> stronger and more unified over time. However, there is a significant
> minori
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
> the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
I'll answer it anyway: it's because our conclusions are reaching a
wider audience, which means we have more pe
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:55:43PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Heh. I just now realized, that false accusation that GFDL
> puts additional restrictions to the user is the root of major part
> of all that anti-GFDL hype.
We've been discussing it for years now. I would hardly call that
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> Indeed, I started with "documentation" and switched to "text" as more
> general; it's hard to keep the sentence structure so close using the
> word "work." "Content" sounds good, so far.
Only trouble I have with "Content" is that is sounds like the document
formatting doe
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:22:47AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
No, it's relevant. In the section you quote:
>L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered
> in their text
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>>>Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law.
>> No, any given work may have slightly different restrictions in
>> different domains of copyright law, but from looking at a license to
>> see whethe
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
> > > wash, unless you overrule the sarge release mas
IANAL, TINLA. Consult with a professional familiar with your situation.
Scott James Remnant said:
> 4. Request the patch from the revision containing the licence change to
> the HEAD.
>
> a. This patch should not include any licence changes.
This patch is derived from the work under the new l
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David B Harris said:
> > Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> -(which makes passes at compilers) written
> >> +(which makes passes at compilers) written
> >
> > I agree that this is an ambiguous case; o
(Ignoring the fact that your statement about the DFSG was untrue, which
has been pointed out elsewhere...)
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Having said this, we must now try to work without the special rules as
> good as possible, unless someone proposes these rules in time for
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 12:50]:
> On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
> >in mind. [...]
>
> Please read
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:07:41AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> J?r?me Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> J?r?me Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
> >>> acceptable (lik
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:53:34AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> 1) Can't be counted as accept any action you perform
> _before_ you receive and read the offer.
This is incorrect. There may be specific cases where it holds, but it
does not in general.
> 2) Can't be counted as accept any
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:25:45PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:22:47AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
>
> No, it's relevant. In the section you quote:
>
> >L. Preserve all th
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:28:31AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Generic "free content" freedoms should probably apply to things like
> musical performance as well, and I don't see these fitting very fell
> for that.
A musical performance as such, or a recording thereof?
It's going to be diffi
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:49:18PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> >>There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
> >> derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:50:09AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> It would be fair to say that Debian has decided that the GFDL is not
> free according to the DFSG. This opinion has only been getting
> stronger and more unified over time. However, there is a significant
> minority who believe that
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:56:59PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:28:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> >>No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
> >> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
> > the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
>
> I'll answer it anyway: it's becaus
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 10:25, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:22:47AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
>
> No, it's relevant. In the section you quote:
>
> >L. Preserve all the Invariant S
[Rick, apologies for the CC if you are subscribed to this list.]
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
> Debian Manual at
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ has in its
> front materi
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:37:46PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> I just request being respected
> within a serious discussion. Is it too much to ask?
Yes. Respect has to be earned at the best of times, and you've pretty
successfully destroyed your supply for the next few months.
--
.''`. ** D
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:00:12AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think the "discussion" on d-l will end only
> when the participants die of exhaustion. I believe Brandon will
> announce the results of the d-l poll today (unless he has already and
> I haven't gotten to it).
On 2003-08-28 17:30:36 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I _have_ read the history. But in spite of Bruce words the DFSG just
doesn't apply plainly to e.g. documentation. [...]
You said "DFSG is made with software in mind" and implied that
documentation is not a subset of software
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:22:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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 we
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:50:09 -0400 (EDT)
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would be fair to say that Debian has decided that the GFDL is not
> > free according to the DFSG. This opinion has only been getting
> > stronger and more unified
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:13:04PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of someone
> incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing it to a
> second person, who subsequently refines this work to create yet another
> work which happen
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> > Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
>> > the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we c
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:00:12AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I think the "discussion" on d-l will end only
>> when the participants die of exhaustion. I believe Brandon will
>> announce the results of the d-l poll today (un
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:58:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> By using copyright law to reinforce software patents (which are a load
> of hooey to begin with of course), the license becomes non-free. A
> notice that the software is subject to patents would be free, but making
> it a binding pa
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:44:57AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Ya know, I was always sure that "or (at your option) any later version"
> header people blindly add to their source would turn out to be a Bad
> Thing.
>
> Imagine... GPLv3 with Invariant Sections... Microsoft take Linux and ad
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-28 01:28:54 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >"Enjoy" is not a term I would use to describe the process of
> >experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were
> >freely licensed, I would cer
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
> FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
>
> I think I see two misunderstandings here. Just who has misunderstood,
> I cannot tell.
>
> First, as
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:09:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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 subthr
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.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compa
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Proof:
> e.g. look at DFSG 4:
[SNIP]
> How does this match to docu?
Source code in this context refers to the prefered form of
modification which is transformed into the form or forms used by the
end user or viewer.
See SGML, texi, docbook, and pod for
Der Virus SOBIG.F wurde empfangen und gelöscht.
From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thu Aug 28 19:43:33 2003 Delete
Filtername: CONTENT FILTER
This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed
and is not intended to be relied upon by any perso
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
>
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for GPL 3, do you intend to use clauses similar to invariant sections
> or to the technical measures stuff in GFDL section 2? This is a matter
> of concern on this list.
>
> That surprises me, since I believe I sent a message to this lis
On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that "software" was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so.
...and I said yes, but you should do it
On 2003-08-28 19:40:08 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 20:35]:
What's your threshold of statistical significance? I'd like to know
for
the purposes of commentary on my "final" survey reponse summary,
which I
can produce about 12 ho
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Rick, apologies for the CC if you are subscribed to this list.]
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
>> This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
>> Debian Manual at
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/ma
David B Harris said:
> On 28 Aug 2003 03:22:47 +0100
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -(which makes passes at compilers) written
>> +(which makes passes at compilers) written
>
> I agree that this is an ambiguous case; one side would want to convince
> the judge that the user was
Der Virus SOBIG.F wurde in Ihrem Mail gefunden.
The virus SOBIG.F has been found in your message.
This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed
and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent
written confirmation of its contents. If you have re
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:13:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example.
> > That's the point: if you come up with the exa
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The point has already been made that the DFSG requirements *are*
> > just as necessary for documentation as they are for
> > programs. (The same motivations apply.)
>
> The same motivations apply, but your argument ignores the fundamental
> differen
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 04:22, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-28 02:10]:
> > Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
> > project's decision on this matter. This will help their psychological
> > problem. ;-)
>
> It is no good fo
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The KJV is not a program. But it is software. "Software" has a
> different extension than "programs".
An argument could even be made that the KJV is a program, only with a
set of ruless governing people, rather than a set of rules governing a
co
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
Debian Manual at
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ has in its
front material the following:
[...]
Permission is granted to copy, distribute an
70 matches
Mail list logo
