> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 11:39:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I thought someone had said that we might reject programs which violate
> > the spirit of the DFSG even if they seem to comply with the letter?
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:31:38AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You seem to be contesti
> > So, backing up a bit: can you suggest a license clause which would be
> > allowed under the "some modifications" interpretation of DFSG#3 and
> > disallowed under "all modifications", while still passing DFSG#4, and
> > not falling under "rules lawyering" like the above? That is, an example
>
On 2004-05-03 04:04:11 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only hint I see in the UK copyright law on how it deals with the
routine copies which are necessary to use a file on a computer [...]
If you're after computer programs, I think section 50A allows copying:
50A.-(1) It is n
Don Armstrong wrote:
The end user can choose to read it, or they can choose not
to. Regardless, they should not be assaulted by the credits or forced
to read them. Going back to journal articles, is the funding grant
number emblazoned in 24 point font above the article title?[1]
funding agen
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 22:55, Don Armstrong wrote:
Furthermore, the list of credits are still included (to my knowledge)
in /usr/share/doc/resierfsprogs/README.gz.
oh, well, that is almost as good as putting them on the dark side of
the moon a credit
Markus Törnqvist wrote:
Probably, but I fail to see how allowing the user to turn off the
DARPA message decreases the end user's knowledge of who funded it.
Credits unread are credits unknown.
The problem is not the end user, the problem is that distros do it
without the end user
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 18:04, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Martin List-Petersen wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 22:55, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >
> >
> Furthermore, the list of credits are still included (to my knowledge)
> in /usr/share/doc/resierfsprogs/README.gz.
>
>
> >>>oh,
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 18:04, Hans Reiser wrote:
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 22:55, Don Armstrong wrote:
Furthermore, the list of credits are still included (to my knowledge)
in /usr/share/doc/resierfsprogs/README.gz.
Markus Törnqvist wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:11:29AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Credits unread are credits unknown.
The problem is not the end user, the problem is that distros do it
without the end user ever knowing that there was something to turn off.
Mayhaps. But it'
Is there any way to do an MD5 of either (1) each module in a software
subsystem or (2) each software version and then have a central registry
where interested developers and users can go to see the credits?
That way you could simply do an MD5 of the current binary and use that
fingerprint to see w
Burnes, James wrote:
Is there any way to do an MD5 of either (1) each module in a software
subsystem or (2) each software version and then have a central registry
where interested developers and users can go to see the credits?
Credits that users must take action to see are not effective cre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I run the german speaking website debianforum.de which is I blieve the
largest online community for debian support and discussions in Germany.
For the postings and the published content I´ve selected the GNU FDL
some times ago. Reading debian-dev
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:35:40PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> For those not wanting a version in Microsoft Word with (?)Estonian,
> this directive's text is also available in English HTML at
> http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31991L0250&model=g
Hans Reiser said on Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:35:39AM -0700,:
> Stallman is experimenting with methods of requiring crediting,
Huh? After terming the BSD-with advertising-clause license `obnoxious'?
> credits. Actually, I think that requiring that the credits be
> equally prominent an
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:49:10PM +0300, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
[SNEEPAGE]
Perhaps this is overly cynical but...
In this day and age people only seem to care about proper attribution
when either
1) Looking for another garbage novel to read.
2) Looking for someone to sue.
The former seems to be c
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Markus Törnqvist wrote:
>
> > Also, if every software showed their credits, there would easily be
> > a ton of them.
> >
> This is bad why? They could be interesting for users to read while
> the install proceeds.
Indeed, it would be far more interesting
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-02 13:07:38 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >where such libraries could be construed to have "interfaces", and
> >where the GPL is used to force a monopoly position, then any company
>
> GPL cannot force a monopoly (in the meaning of
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 18:41, Burnes, James wrote:
> Is there any way to do an MD5 of either (1) each module in a software
> subsystem or (2) each software version and then have a central registry
> where interested developers and users can go to see the credits?
>
> That way you could simply do an
On Mon, 03 May 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I have never seen a journal reproduce another journal's article
> while deleting the mention of the funding agency. That kind of
> abuse seems reserved for linux distros to practice.
Yes, but one of the reasons why they don't have to is because people
wri
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:41:30PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> A dominant market player could use the GPL in an abusive way.
> For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
> under GPL.
After thinking about a number of scenarios, I don't think that this
would work as a for
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor
> mentioned on the rest of the website. I will add this after giving you
> some time for feedback and improval suggestions.
The following is presented only as
Arnoud Engelfriet said on Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:41:30PM +0200,:
> A dominant market player could use the GPL in an abusive way. For
> example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries under
> GPL.
How can use of the GNU GPL abuse *users'* rights? Even if by M$?
--
+~
There is something in here which merits our deeper attention.
MJ Ray said on Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:35:40PM +0100,:
> this directive's text is also available in English HTML at
> http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31991L0250&model=guichet
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 14:16, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Hans Reiser said on Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:35:39AM -0700,:
>
> > credits. Actually, I think that requiring that the credits be
> > equally prominent and retain their wording is quite flexible for
> > that purpose already, but please
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Burnes, James wrote:
>
>>Is there any way to do an MD5 of either (1) each module in a software
>>subsystem or (2) each software version and then have a central registry
>>where interested developers and users can go to see the credits?
>>
> Credits that us
Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah that's an interesting point. TCP/IP is a standard, so it's non free...
> Maybe all implementation of that should go in contrib so, because
> they 'depend' on a piece of 'something' which is not free. So, we
> have to move the whole kernel
This email spoke much about "forcing". To me, forcing is almost always
compulsion. That's not really what Reiser or Debian can do to each
other. The only thing I see that can be compelled is for Debian not to
distribute Reiser's software at all, if it goes under totally
no-copying terms.
On 2
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've posted a summary of the discussion on including Squeak in non-free:
> >
> > http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3733
> >
> > I'll edit it as issues come up. There are two open issues:
>
> The
Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > The term "under your direct control" typically does not refer to
> > > physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it
> > > usu
MJ Ray wrote:
[at least 3 insults snipped]
>>> Surely there is! If we (or RedHat) were to do such a thing, our very
>>> users and developers would be quite vocal about it, and rightly so.
>
> On 2004-05-02 22:02:38 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> They did it and nothing happene
On Mon, 03 May 2004 09:58:30 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus
=?UNKNOWN?Q?T=F6rnqvist?=) said:
> It's really quite a shame that the best distro around is so rigid
> as to not allow Reiser's minor, and understandable, addition in
> his licensing.
The idiomatic phrase for this is "slippery slope"
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
OK, so say RedHat did bad. I don't use RedHat for years, which is the
only way users can effectively respond. I plan to stop using XFree86
because of its dumb developers who won't answer simple questions about
^^^
Hey, can
On 2004-05-03 17:35:39 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Copyright notices have
a specific place in Debian, and are always placed there.
Moving them would violate the law.
What law?
Furthermore, we expect copyright notices to also indicate the terms
under which they are (or are n
On 2004-05-03 18:53:35 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this is about interoperability rather than monopoly.
Sure, but you started on about monopolies, which don't really have
anything to do with this directive. I assumed that you were
referencing competition la
On 2004-05-03 18:30:53 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If Debian would pro-actively find effective and reasonably ways to
credit
authors, then the tension would come out of this situation
It is difficult to be pro-active when having to react to developers.
Also, "reasonable"
On 2004-05-03 18:45:16 +0100 Sebastian Feltel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Wich license (which fits the documentation needs and is
DFSG-compatible)
would you use if you were in my situation?
Probably a very simple licence, a localised appropriate (by? by-sa?)
Creative Commons licence (if avai
On 2004-05-03 19:41:30 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
under GPL.
People fork them and create competition?
or open source project with an incompatible license is entitled to
request a compatible license and
On 2004-05-03 22:53:05 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
because of its dumb developers who won't answer simple questions
about
^^^
Hey, can you do anything else but insult people?
I'm not sure what you mean. I've reread the e
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-05-03 18:45:16 +0100 Sebastian Feltel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Wich license (which fits the documentation needs and is
>> DFSG-compatible)
>> would you use if you were in my situation?
>
> Probably a very simple licence, a localised appropriate
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>On 2004-05-03 18:45:16 +0100 Sebastian Feltel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>>Wich license (which fits the documentation needs and is
>>>DFSG-compatible)
>>>would you use if you were in my situation?
>>
>>Probably a very simple lice
Sebastian Feltel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
> I run the german speaking website debianforum.de which is I blieve the
> largest online community for debian support and discussions in Germany.
>
> For the postings and the published content I
Hello,
I am now packaging a Tetris-like game, and I have some doubts about the
description.
I have written the description like this:
Description: Free clone of Tetris, featuring a bastard level
Bastet (stands for "bastard Tetris") is a free (GPL'd) clone of
Tetris(r) (built on the top of petris
42 matches
Mail list logo
