On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:40:59AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> The opinion of debian-legal would be highly appreciated by all involved in
> this
> long running thread of discussion about the implications of:
>
> 1- Kaffe being licensed under the GNU GPL.
> 2- Kaffe's class library being licens
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:13:11PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> There is currently a RC bug reported against gucharmap (#216118),
> because it includes files derived from the Unicode character database.
> The license for these files is available at
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UCD.ht
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Kaffe is essentially a filter that takes java
bytecode as input and emits program code on the fly (this is
technically incomplete, but effectively equivalent for the sake of
this argument). The input to a filter cannot be a derivative work of
it; we don't *care* about the s
Hi,
during the discussion about the legal status of LaTeX2HTML [1], some
people confirmed my interpretation of the DFSG.1. But after some weeks
of intense discussion with the upstream maintainer, he is still not yet
convinced about our argumentation (although possibly ready to change the
LaTeX2HTM
Scripsit Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There's a different way possible:
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict
> any party from selling or giving away the software
> as a component of an aggregate software distribution
> containing programs from several different sour
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> In short, we accept "you may not sell this program alone" clauses, but
> only if they have loopholes big enough to make them completely
> ineffective in practice.
By the way, I think this phrasing in the DFSG is no accident. It's
Hi,
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 17:17, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The license of a Debian component may not restrict
> > any party from selling or giving away the software
> > as a component of an aggregate software distribution
> > containing programs from several different sources.
> > + (But
Scripsit Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would really like to have a consensus about this issue until the sarge
> release for being sure about this when checking licenses.
The consensus is long-standing and unambiguous. I do not remember
seing it seriously challenged in the 5+ years I have
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:55:58PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Playing Tetrinet rarely results pesky licensing issues being found that
> ultimately require the attention of people who would rather be hacking,
> or keeps a pet snippet of non-free software out of Debian.
No, but it might help keep
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:31:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:13:11PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > There is currently a RC bug reported against gucharmap (#216118),
> > because it includes files derived from the Unicode character database.
> > The license for t
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:47:28PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > In short, we accept "you may not sell this program alone" clauses, but
> > only if they have loopholes big enough to make them completely
> > ineffective in pract
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:49:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> With the world the way it is, we as a Project have no *choice* but to
> sweat pesky licensing issues.
Complete agreement, of course.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Nov 3, 2003, at 04:29, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Also, C programs directly include copyrightable program code from
header files,
Some do, most don't. The constants, structure definitions, and short
four-line functions found in header files probably aren't
copyrightable.
Hi,
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 20:41, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I also don't think that your proposal (A) is an "interpretation" or
> "clarification". It is a *change*
Right, maybe ...
> - the current language "as a
> component of an aggregate software distribution" is hard (but
> apparently possible
Scripsit Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 20:41, Henning Makholm wrote:
> ..., but the result of the small LaTeX2HTML discussion last month seems
> to show a big misunderstanding because everybody involved claimed rather
> (A)
No - they complained that the license discuss
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:24:40PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Nov 3, 2003, at 04:29, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >Also, C programs directly include copyrightable program code from
> >header files,
>
> Some do, most don't. The constants, structure definitions, and short
> four-line f
[This is no longer particularly important]
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:37:49AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >Kaffe is essentially a filter that takes java
> >bytecode as input and emits program code on the fly (this is
> >technically incomplete, but effectively equivalent
* Roland Stigge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031103 16:25]:
> (A)
> ===
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict
> any party from selling or giving away the software
> - as a component of an aggregate software distribution
> - containing p
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 21:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I.e. since there's the right to sell the aggregation, there "should"
> > (DFSG wording in #8) be right to sell the program alone.
>
> No, nothing of that kind is implied. If everybody has the right to
> sell aggregations, then DFSG#8 is met.
Scripsit Roland Stigge
> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 21:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > DFSG#8 excludes licenses that, for example, allow selling of
> > aggregations only if the aggregation is Debian, or derived from Debian.
> The first sentence of #8 suggests just this, but the consequence of the
> sec
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 22:24, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > DFSG#8 excludes licenses that, for example, allow selling of
> > > aggregations only if the aggregation is Debian, or derived from Debian.
>
> > The first sentence of #8 suggests just this, but the consequence of the
> > second sentence of
Scripsit Roland Stigge
> Just take the example of a license that explicitly allows the selling of
> the program in an aggregation but not the program alone. After
> extracting it from Debian and giving it away to someone else at no cost,
> #8 requires the receiver to "have the same rights as those
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The consensus is long-standing and unambiguous. I do not remember
> seing it seriously challenged in the 5+ years I have been following
> debian-legal.
I think it's a bit too strong to say that it's completely unambiguous.
I think it's more than no on
On Nov 3, 2003, at 15:46, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Data structure usually drives code, not the other way around. There's
significant creative effort in designing them, so copyright usually
subsists in them.
Sure, there are data structures that are copyrightable, such as
POSITIVE SOFTWARE SOLUTI
On Nov 3, 2003, at 17:30, Roland Stigge wrote:
Just take the example of a license that explicitly allows the selling
of
the program in an aggregation but not the program alone. After
extracting it from Debian and giving it away to someone else at no
cost,
#8 requires the receiver to "have t
25 matches
Mail list logo
