Quoting Daniel Isacc Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> It appears that way .. However, something else comes to mind.
> Some PHP applications are closed source. My code would facilitade a close
> source PHP script to _use_ talkfilters . But that's not a violated either,
> even if I keep it closed?
I'm
Quoting Daniel Isacc Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> License conflict? Like it's not illegal but it's a taboo?
No. {sigh}
Once again: Read the GPL.
Under GPLv2 clause 6, your permission to redistribute a covered work
(including derivative works) is conditioned on your imposing no further
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 10:22:33PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I am the one in the FSF who has made statements about Debian and
> non-free software, and the statements I have made are true as far as I
> know. If you think anything I said is not true, please show me the
> statement and the rel
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 10:22:42PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> This is an illuminating comparison, because the practical problems of
> the GFDL (and I won't claim there are none) are basically of the same
> kind (though of a lower magnitude) than those of the 4-clause BSD
> license. (I explai
Hi, all!
[Full-quote for debian-legal]
[Please CC me and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Though I no longer intend to package UnrealIRCd I would like to help the
developers in regard to the licensing issues.
The main issue for the developers is AFAIK the "no warranty" clause and
how to make it legally binding
On 2003-09-01 03:22:33 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sections, and spread misinformation about non-free software we
distribute.
To accuse someone of dishonesty is a grave accusation.
To accuse someone of accusing someone of dishonesty is pretty serious,
too. You ap
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to
> > > bother. Now they should bother.
> > Where was
O Domingo, 31 de Agosto de 2003 ás 13:51:13 -0700, Daniel Isacc Walker escribía:
[...]
> under the GPL . What this means is that my software is automatically GPL'd
> even though it has no GPL'd source in it. The GPL doesn't distinguish
[...]
> incorporated directly into PHP that means that PHP aut
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The main issue for the developers is AFAIK the "no warranty" clause and
> how to make it legally binding.
I'm not really sure what it means to make a "no warranty" clause
"legally binding". If you are trying to avoid getting sued then you
might be better off if
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To accuse someone of accusing someone of dishonesty is pretty serious,
> too.
He was probably in a hurry and misunderstood. A polite correction
would do. There's no need to start accusing RMS of accusing people of
accusing him of dishonesty, not that I want to accus
Hi, Edmund!
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 12:12]:
> I'm not really sure what it means to make a "no warranty" clause
> "legally binding". If you are trying to avoid getting sued then you
> might be better off if you make a sincere effort to inform users of
> the potential
Hi!
[Please CC me]
I'm the new maintainer of celestia which is a space simulation program.
As such it contains a lot of data, numerical data such as positions of
stars as well as 3D models and textures.
The copyright status of all this data is a real mess and we (the authors
and me) are trying t
Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe this license is DFSG compliant, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are
> similar to some GPL sections. I wonder about section 3.6 as well.
The one thing that worries me is
> 3.2 Availability of Source Code.
> Any Modification which You create or to which
On 2003-09-01 14:50:40 +0100 Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) If one includes public-domain material in a GPL work, does one have
to state what material is in the public domain?
I'm not sure, but would say yes.
2) Are there any GPL-compatibility issues when the data is licensed
diff
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> > signed it.
>
> And what does that mean? May I download Emacs, not accept the GPL, use
> it, run into problems with my business because of using it and then sue
> the FSF?
Of course. You
Hi, Edmund!
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 17:03]:
> Of course. You have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time!
Oh well, I think you know what I meant. :)
> However, in their defence the FSF will probably use the following
> elements of the GPL as evidence that
Hi, MJ!
Thanks for the pointer to the GPL FAQ. I've read it and found some
things...
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 16:49]:
> On 2003-09-01 14:50:40 +0100 Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >1) If one includes public-domain material in a GPL work, does one have
> >to state what m
* Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 10:53]:
> And that seems OK to me. Although you can probably restrict yourself to
> the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" part.
I'm sorry but this is wrong. You have to include the whole GPL as you
did.
cf. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamb
On 2003-09-01 17:00:57 +0100 Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL
indirectly implies that public domain code does not have to be marked
as
such.
Yes, as long as you are comfortable with the appearance of GPLing it,
which
Hi, MJ!
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 18:25]:
> On 2003-09-01 17:00:57 +0100 Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL
> >indirectly implies that public domain code does not have to be marked
> >as such.
> Yes, as lon
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:52:29PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> Luckily, we only have a few (one?) large components of Debian that are
> under a 4-clause BSD license [OpenSSL]. I for one, will be glad when
> gnutls completely supplants the use of openssl.
This may change, if ftpmasters accept
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:09:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > 3.2 Availability of Source Code.
> > Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
> > made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License
> > either on the same media as an Executable version
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The whole point of my hypothetical example is that I don't accept the
> license and use the software nevertheless.
> How could the GPL then be of any help?
People don't have to accept the GPL unless they are redistributing. I
would guess that the GPL helps beca
On 2003-09-01 17:42:28 +0100 Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bah. It also applies in general to all software.
Is data a subset of software?
In general, no. In this case, yes, assuming we are only talking about
things that will be uploaded to Debian.
[...]
Thanks, but it's probabl
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 18:54 US/Eastern, Daniel Isacc Walker wrote:
>
> > I use talkfilters data structures and API in my code. Is
> > that a derivate work? Everything else I've read indicates that it
> > isn't..
>
> We had a rather recen
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 06:02:50PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> > And that seems OK to me. Although you can probably restrict yourself to
> > the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" part.
>
> I'm sorry but this is wrong. You have to include the whole GPL as you
> did.
>
> cf. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-f
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:22:42 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I, and, to a large extent, other members of this list, are concerned
> that, beyond the non-trivial freedom aspects, texts under the GFDL
> will begin to suffer the same fate that code licensed under the
>
Hi, again!
* Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 15:50]:
> I'm the new maintainer of celestia which is a space simulation program.
> As such it contains a lot of data, numerical data such as positions of
> stars as well as 3D models and textures.
>
> The copyright status of all this data
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 19:16]:
> You can remove the preamble.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
Yes, but that creates a different license and that is not wanted in this
case.
> CC RMS: could this please be clarified? It's causing repeat
> confusio
IANAL, TINLA
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 05:28:41PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> Hi, Edmund!
>
> * Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 17:03]:
> > Of course. You have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time!
>
> Oh well, I think you know what I meant. :)
>
> > However, in
Hi!
* Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 20:39]:
> So, even if you do not accept the license but you do copy, modify,
> and/or distribute the Program, you're still bound by the License.
What about "use"? I think that's the most important one here.
> Not accepting the GPL is not a wa
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:39:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> That doesn't change anything. Quote from the GPL:
> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:35:24PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> > CC RMS: could this please be clarified? It's causing repeat
> > confusion, and nobody knows if we're really allowed to remove the
> > preamble and/or create derivative licenses of the GPL.
>
> I think the following is quite clear:
Quoting Daniel Isacc Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> That's interesting. In the Wine community the majority opinion is
> that the Win32 API and data structures are not copyrightable. My opinion
> is derived mainly from my work with Wine. Since the Win32 API is so vast
> (100's of functions and struc
IANAL, TINLA.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Mika Fischer wrote:
> Could you then comment on the quoted comment on a ruling in my first
> email?
This particular ruling is rather interesting, because the main issue
was the ability of the license agreement to compel arbitration, rather
than the generic warra
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 07:29:42PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I don't think the MPL was ever properly reviewed here :(
I don't think it was, but IMO it is not a DFSG-compatible license.
--
G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is
Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:13:14PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamble
[...]
> > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
>
> This is not clear at all. The preamble is integral and may not be removed,
> and the license permits only ve
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:01:35PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 20:39]:
> > So, even if you do not accept the license but you do copy, modify,
> > and/or distribute the Program, you're still bound by the License.
>
> What about "use"? I th
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:50:40PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> Now the questions:
> 1) If one includes public-domain material in a GPL work, does one have
> to state what material is in the public domain?
At least in the U.S., to my knowledge, this is not *required*. I can
quote entire plays' wo
Richard Stallman wrote:
>This is an illuminating comparison, because the practical problems of
>the GFDL (and I won't claim there are none) are basically of the same
>kind (though of a lower magnitude) than those of the 4-clause BSD
^^^
Replace this with "great
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 06:42:28PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> Is data a subset of software?
For the purposes of testing its license terms (if any) against the
Debian Free Software Guidelines and distributing it from our archives,
yes.
For other purposes, please retain a philosopher. :)
--
G.
Steve Langasek wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg7.html):
>Does this mean that the gcc maintainers don't agree with this list's
>interpretation of the GFDL, or that they don't regard this as a high
>priority between now and the release?
I believe that
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:24:57PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> How far does one have to go in regard to data? A few examples.
>
> - Data published on the web:
> http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/cat1.html lists stars with possible planets
> around them.
> Is one allowed to use this data in a progr
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 10:22:42PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> None of us have ever considered saying that the 4-clause BSD license
> is non-free, or suggesting that programs under such licenses should
> be removed from Debian main.
I've said it at least once.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linu
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Daniel Isacc Walker wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 18:54 US/Eastern, Daniel Isacc Walker wrote:
> >
> > > I use talkfilters data structures and API in my code. Is
> > > that a derivate work?
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Of course. You have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time!
Only in the US. Most countries require the plaintiff actually have a
case before letting them in the courtroom.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andre
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 04:16:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:24:57PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> > How far does one have to go in regard to data? A few examples.
> >
> > - Data published on the web:
> > http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/cat1.html lists stars with poss
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Of course. You have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time!
>
> Only in the US. Most countries require the plaintiff actually have a
> case before letting them in the c
[ Disclaimer: I supposedly have CVS access, last I was told, and I]
[ certainly do most of the work to ensure that GCC will work on the ]
[ proto-port to NetBSD; apart from that, and reading both debian-gcc ]
[ and debian-legal, you probably have to ask Matthias Klose for a final
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:50:40PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> 1) If one includes public-domain material in a GPL work, does one have
> to state what material is in the public domain?
Copyright does not subsist in public domain works; that is the
definition of the term, in jurisdictions where it
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:45:05PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 04:16:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:24:57PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> > > How far does one have to go in regard to data? A few examples.
> > >
> > > - Data published o
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > That is my big question, which no one seems to want to answer. Is it
> > ok for the Release Manager to ignore the Social Contract? These
> > documents are not going to become free in the
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Isacc Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > I use talkfilters data structures and API in my code. Is that a
> > derivate work? Everything else I've read indicates that it isn't..
>
> Copyright doesn't cover ideas.
>
> But I believe you're asking
53 matches
Mail list logo
