On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> Kanjidic's copyright file states (lines 208-212):
>
>"The commercial utilization of the frequency numbers is prohibited
>without written permission from Jack Halpern. Use by individuals and
>small groups for reference and research purposes i
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"The commercial utilization of the frequency numbers is prohibited
> >without written permission from Jack Halpern. Use by individuals and
> >small groups for reference and research purposes is permitted, on
> >condition that acknowledgement of
reopen 183860
tags 183860 moreinfo
thanks control
I've just send a message to RMS (cc'd to this bug) asking for
clarification.
I hope we get as solution soon; however, at the moment, this appears to
be quite a valid bug. Using even marginally cautious standard of what
constitutes "a work bas
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I hope we get as solution soon; however, at the moment, this appears to
> be quite a valid bug. Using even marginally cautious standard of what
> constitutes "a work based on [the Program] under Section 2 [of the
> GPL]", the manuals qualify.
Huh? Why do you think
On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote:
Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo
through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of a
(specific) Texinfo interpreter?
Because that's not what we're doing. We're running texinfo.tex and
foo.tex
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> >Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo
> >through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of a
> >(specific) Texinfo interpreter?
>
> Because that's not what we're doi
Dafydd Harries wrote:
> This appears to me to be a clear violation of policy.
The problem with SKIP codes has been fixed in kanjidic 2003.07.21-1.
See the changelog:
kanjidic (2003.07.21-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release
* New license that allows modifications and free redistrib
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 08:06:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 2003, at 13:21, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >
> > >Huh? Why do you think that running a document written in Texinfo
> > >through a Texinfo interpreter makes the document a derivative work of
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Ludovic Drolez wrote:
> Moreover, Jim Breen, the author of kanjidic, explained me that Jack
> Halpern's SKIP copyright statement is a "dead letter" (and kanjidic
> file has been used by freeware and shareware for a decade without
> Jack Halpern making any noise about it). He'll
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> First, since the frequency can be construed as a fact, and therefore
>> is not copyrightable work of authorship, I'm not particularly
>> concerned by this. [If there is a jurisdiction which does construe
>> mer
15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
>> > If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you
>> > can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a
>> > particular kind of m
17-Dec-03 07:26 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Emphasis added, of course. So, when I write a plugin I can't claim to
> have created a compilation of the plugin and the host, because the
> plugin is not preexisting.
> Following the readme file's statement that A is a plugin for HOST
> certainly does n
16-Dec-03 16:07 Joe Moore wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis said:
>> The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
>> copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
>> what they'd do then.
> I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that "The Work"
> d
16-Dec-03 13:34 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
>> doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
>> license to trump each other?
> If one section of a le
Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote:
> > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
> >> Thus, when distributing binaries compiled from sources, the
> >> compilation is under Section 2 and the distributi
15 matches
Mail list logo
