Font source Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

> People have argued that since there exists open source tools for > editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even > if Font Foundries have their own preferred source formats and use > propietary tools to create font files via a compilation process. But the TrueType fi

Re: The QPL licence

Glenn Maynard said on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400,: > would the individual clause or the entire license be considered > invalid? If the latter, licenses with unenforcable clauses should > probably be considered non-free, as the license could be terminated > as a result. That d

Re: Font source Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > But almost no one, if given a choice of the binary or the assembly language > to edit, would choose the binary. At the very least, the assembly would be > invaluable to deciphering the details of the firmware, and I suspect many > programmers would write

Re: Font source Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and > > the binary in this case. Write a Q&D disassembler and extract the > > assembly if you want. > > Even if we were talking about x

Re: Font source Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and > the binary in this case. Write a Q&D disassembler and extract the > assembly if you want. Even if we were talking about x86 assembly, there would still be a lot of diffe

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

Scripsit Benjamin Cutler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The problem is that the first license is pretty obviously complete > bunk, because it sounds like a purchased program, not a piece of > source code released to the public. The second license seems to be > less restrictive, but it's pretty vague at the

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Benjamin Cutler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The problem is that the first license is pretty obviously complete bunk, because it sounds like a purchased program, not a piece of source code released to the public. The second license seems to be less restrictive, but it's

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> However, debian-legal assumes that the GFDL with invariant sections is > >> non-free, and there seems to be a majority for a general rejection as > >> a free _software_ license (bu

Re: Squeak in Debian?

Martin Schulze wrote: Henning Makholm clarfied the other two points I noted. > | And furthermore, the worst line of all: > | > | "This License allows you to copy, install and use the Apple Software on > | an unlimited number of computers under your direct control." > | > | Purports to restrict

Re: contracts vs. licenses, OSI, and Debian (was: The QPL licence)

Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: >> Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the >> Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of >> converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major me

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

Milan Zamazal wrote: > Thank you all for your answers, I think I can get the point now. I'll add a couple more clarifications. :-) >> "HM" == Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > HM> I made a copy. It's not my copyright, is other person. If I do > HM> "chmod -r", it's a tec

Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release

Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Maintaining a bunch of firmware .(u)debs and keeping them in sync with > their appropriate kernel version is surely more effort that two kernel > packages. No, it's not. The firmware, if done right, will be in architecture-independent, kernel-version-neutral packages. --

Re: Forgent starts litigating JPEG...

Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > "Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software > vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing > on its claim to an algorithm used in the popular JPEG picture file > format." >

Re: The QPL licence

Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote: > >> I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a >> license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable >> clauses? > > The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's adv

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

Martin Schulze wrote: > I wonder if all documents licensed under the GNU Free Documentation > License[1] are inherently non-free with regards to the Debian Free > Software Guidelines[2]. > > I thought that if no invariant sections were used the document would > still be considered free. However,

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

Florian Weimer wrote: >> 2) None of the proponents of this position came up with good >> reasons why the freedoms we consider so important for software >> don't apply to documentation. > > Well, there are many reasons, but you probably won't consider them > good enough. Personally, I'm much in f

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:46:48PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: >> Well, I didn't do the mods myself, so it's not really any work lost on >> my part. Do you think attempting to contact Activision would be any help >> at all? > > I have no idea. If you do, you should proba

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

Benjamin Cutler wrote: > is there any way of > including this in Debian without receiving a new license from Raven? No. Period. The program appears to be licensed under two licenses; if so, this means you can use whichever one you prefer. The first one is obviously non-free. The second on

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

> "NN" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: NN> Milan Zamazal wrote: > I think it's not your copyright, but it's still your copy. So > `chmod -r' is IMHO just stopping distribution of the copy. NN> Which is precisely what is prohibited. :-P NN> From the

Re: Squeak in Debian?

> > | And furthermore, the worst line of all: > > | > > | "This License allows you to copy, install and use the Apple Software on > > | an unlimited number of computers under your direct control." > > | > > | Purports to restrict use. Doesn't allow use on computers not "under > > | your direct c

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm wrote: > > I have read through your message several times, but did not find any > > "second license". Did you forget to paste it in? > Would I be right in saying that this is the second license? Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 08:03:29PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line! FWIW, The two licenses were in two different MIME attachments. Mutt shows this inline. Is your mailer playing tricks on you? -- Glenn Maynard

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

Henning Makholm wrote: Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line! Dunno why it did that, I just attached em at the end... strange.

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Milan Zamazal wrote: > Is locking your computer room "a technical measure to obstruct or > control the reading or further copying"? It's not so easy to read > the text and IANAL. You could probably construct a case for it, which is one of the reasons why this clause is kind o

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 08:03:29PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line! > FWIW, The two licenses were in two different MIME attachments. Mutt shows > this inline. Is your mailer playing tricks on you? Hop

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 08:03:29PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > >> > Ooh, sneaky. It starts in the middle of a line! > >> FWIW, The two licenses were in two different MIME attachments. Mutt shows >> thi

Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release

Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:04:13AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > >>Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? If he >>thinks it's acceptable (or possibly even the 'preferred form of >>modification') to have in Linux and that it's not violating the GPL

Re: Problematic Software Licenses

Benjamin Cutler wrote: > There's a piece of software called "acc" I'd like to package up and > possibly include in Debian (along with some other tools that complement > it, and are under seperate, DSFG-free licenses, so they're not an > issue), but the included licenses are problematic at best. I'v

Repost of the DRAFT d-l summary of the OSL v2.0

I'm reposting this as a draft (a) because it's been longer than I planned before posting the new version, and (b) there are some changes to this (e.g., including the fourth issue, and the way I ground the first one) that I figured I'd give people a chance to object to. That said, I don't expect ob

RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

Hi. As some of you might have known/noticed, Andreas Barth and I worked on a way to present the findings of debian-legal on the Debian website. I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the pages of the security team), put them online and added a first license, OPL, based

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the > pages of the security team), put them online and added a first > license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy > Hankins. You can find these pages on > http://www

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the pages of the security team), put them online and added a first license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy Hankins. You can find these pages on http://www.debian