Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'm at a loss to find where copyright law specifies the terms and
> forms of an agreement or license.
(Note: "Agreement" is your addition to this discussion, part of your
attempt to change the subject to contract law. I spoke nowhere of
"agreements"
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 04:37:38AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 05:13:06PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > In light of the DMCA, I'd say it's exactly as pervasive, for a significant
> > portion of our users. Once it goes in, it never comes out (legally,
> > anyway).
>
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
> Assuming we're talking about USA jurisdictions: 17 USC 106 et seq.
> enumerates rights reserved to copyright owners by default. Others
> are conveyed automatically to any lawful recipient of a covered work
> -- the default licence implicit in copyright law.
* Joel Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030906 23:50]:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 08:16:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > No, prohibiting DRM systems is unambiguously non-free under the DFSG.
> >
> > It just happens to be _silly_ right now.
>
> Er. How's that again?
>
> How is this significantly
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 00:50]:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up.
> > We can't ship without RPC in glibc
> Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues this severe.
W
* Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 07:05]:
> Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > You are mistaken. Your statement is not true for parts of this world
> > (but it may be true for other parts of the world). For example in
> > Germany you're always making a contract, even with GPL.
>
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 05:49:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:19:32 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> > Plea
* Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 07:35]:
> If you are asserting that licences must apply through contract
> mechanisms (which is what I understand to be your -- tediously familiar
> from past iterations of this discussion -- argument), then privity of
> contract between the licensor and thir
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:59:13PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Please don't forget
> the original question: what minimal work must someone do to get an
> upstream to relicense a work.
Yes, and the original answer: get a digitally signed email and don't
show it to anyone. We're now discussing why th
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up.
> > We can't ship without RPC in glibc
>
> Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues th
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 11:50]:
> However, if *you* are willing to write a
> replacement, and are willing to hold up the release for that, I will
> support you, but then you should make sure the code is at least as good
> as the RPC code which *is* in glibc right now. Not doin
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:59:13PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > Please don't forget
> > the original question: what minimal work must someone do to get an
> > upstream to relicense a work.
>
> Yes, and the original answer: get a digitally signed em
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > You are mistaken. Your statement is not true for parts of this world
> > (but it may be true for other parts of the world). For example in
> > Germany you're always making a contract, even with GPL.
>
> I have no doubt you are corre
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at
> > > least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after
> > > section 2c of the GPL if you disagree).
> >
> > You've tried to make that arg
On Saturday, Sep 6, 2003, at 18:53 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There is a difference between saying "You may make no further legal
restrictions" and saying "You may make no technical restrictions";
it's the difference between "inclusive" and "exclusive",
approximately.
The GPL says both
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 02:29:13PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > IIRC, the specific section that most people are refering to is:
> > >
> > >You may not use technical measures to obstru
On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 06:09 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck
up.
We can't ship without RPC
* Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 17:20]:
> The GPL says both. It says you must provide the preferred form for
> making modifications. A format which uses DRM to prevent or hinder
> modification, copying, etc. is clearly not that format. (In the source
> code world, think of obfus
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:31:19AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Yeah, because there is *no* difference whatsoever between:
>
> "We're sorry, upstream did not make clear to us the full
>licensing terms of their software. Now that we have
>found out, we've fixed it as qui
> A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being
> long, regardless of its meaning. A section of the same length in a
> manual would not cause any such inconvenience. Nobody is "heavily
> affected" by a few extra pages in a large manual.
This is not tr
> Another form of tangent is citing practical inconveniences, often
> shared with many other accepted free licenses, as if they were
> reasons to consider a license non-free.
This is incorrect. Practical inconveniences are precisely the point
in deciding whether a restriction
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 05:31:59PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
> > No, prohibiting DRM systems is unambiguously non-free under the DFSG.
>
> I will tend to consider the opposite that the section about "technical
> measure" protect the point 5 and 6 of the DFSoftwareG. The section is
> here
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being
> > long, regardless of its meaning. A section of the same length in a
> > manual would not cause any such inconvenience. Nobody is "heavily
> > affected" by a
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Another form of tangent is citing practical inconveniences, often
> > shared with many other accepted free licenses, as if they were
> > reasons to consider a license non-free.
>
> This is incorrect. Practical inconveniences are pr
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at
> > > > least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after
> > > > secti
[I assume that since RMS has asserted that he is not "on speaking terms" with
me, that he doesn't particularly care to be CCed on this mail. I therefore
offer this for the interest of my fellow Debian developers.]
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 04:24:44PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The situation i
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:03:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I would say that replacal of the Sun-code should be a release goal for
> sarge+1, except if the matter could be clarified with Sun or someone
> stands up right now to actually write the code.
Why? We can just put off fixing it then,
27 matches
Mail list logo
