Re: reiser4 non-free?

Scripsit Adam Kessel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is there a reason why the reiserfsprogs package couldn't fork and > continue under a free license? It is in Debian, licensed under GPLv2. The legal implications would be rather murky. As far as I understand Reiser, his basic claim is that he has *alwa

Re: reiser4 non-free?

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 06:29:58AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > The short of the long is that Reiser would have a significant chance > (although not complete certaincy) of winning a suit against a user who > modified the software in the way that Reiser does not like - even if > the user had reci

Re: Poly/ML license

Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > > 4. The copyright and other intellectual property rights of > > whatever nature in any improvements, enhancements or modifications > > to the source code of the Software or which necessitate access to > > the source code of the Software in order to be com

Re: Poly/ML license

On 2004-05-08 10:33:44 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Effectively, these clauses say "you must send us all your improvements and license us to do whatever we want with them." That is the general problem with the Poly/ML licence, yes.

Re: reiser4 non-free?

[Sorry if I messed up the reply somehow, I wasn't subscribed and that made replying difficult. Now I am (to d-l). Couldn't these be archived somewhere in mbox format?] Hans Reiser wrote: > It is the license for reiser4progs and not reiser4 in the kernel. At least the kernel patches in the Debian

Re: GFDL

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 23:25, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > MJ Ray said on Sat, May 08, 2004 at 02:45:04AM +0100,: > > > Has the "GNU project encyclopaedia" problem ever been adequately > > dealt with? This is the idea that you cannot incorporate a work > > with the "Invariant GNU Manifesto" in

Re: European Directive on Copyright Law (91/EC/250) wrt open source

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > ... regarding EU directives: are individual governments _allowed_ to > go beyond the bounds of the EU directives (in the implementation into > law)? They must change their law to conform to the directive. But there's no instance that can intervene if they'r

Re: reiser4 non-free?

Mr. Stallman: First of all, I would like to state that I have nothing but deep respect and admiration for your ideals, and all your work. Thank you for everything. That said, I humbly disagree with your e-mail: RMS wrote: >> It's the same case as Windows NDIS drivers loading on linux. They >> we

Re: reiser4 non-free?

Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > In the case of a NDIS driver, the driver itself is without doubt NOT a > derived work on the linux kernel. Yes, but the combination of the driver with the kernel is a derived work of the kernel, and it's not a case of "mere aggregation", which the GPL permits

THANK YOU FOR YOUR MAIL

This is an automatic email response message Hello, Thank you for inquiring! You can go to WWW.ADHDRECORDS.COM OR CHOOSE A SITE THE WWW.MP3COLONY.COM MUSIC TRAFFIC EXCHANGE * PLAY ONLINE GAMES.Uproar Trivia,Sports Trivia,Battleships, Poker,Dots,

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:06:01AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > Many of us believe that any string of bits is software, and that the text > > of the GPL is software, and so the old SC applied to the GPL text equally > > to the new one--but nobody was silly enough to try to enforce that. > > The

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 06:12:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > The fact that non-free license texts are allowed in main does not imply > that every other bit of non-free software must be allowed in, too. When I brought up the fact that the GPL was non-modifiable everyone rolled their eyes and s

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 03:23:00PM -0700, William Ballard wrote: > On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 06:12:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > The fact that non-free license texts are allowed in main does not imply > > that every other bit of non-free software must be allowed in, too. > > When I brought up

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

Glenn Maynard writes: > On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:06:01AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >> > Many of us believe that any string of bits is software, and that the text >> > of the GPL is software, and so the old SC applied to the GPL text equally >> > to the new one--but nobody was silly enough to t

Re: reiser4 non-free?

Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 06:29:58AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > The short of the long is that Reiser would have a significant chance > > (although not complete certaincy) of winning a suit against a user who > > modified the software in the way that

debian-l10n-spanish@lists.debian.org

Debian-l10n-spanish backup flippant psychoacoustic loss tektite hrothgar coaxial scar Picture is Loading . . . . Page not Loadi.ng? No Do.ctor Nee.ded, Ord.er He.re lesion draftee invidious orthopedic allyn manipulable browse doorkeep featherbed savonarola dysentery conductor transmitter du

IRAF package license

Greetings, I'm near completion of a Debian package of IRAF, previously packaged by Zed Paubre, who has agreed to sponsor me. I believe this new release has new license issues. Here's the deal. IRAF depends on TABLES (distributed separately, but TABLES depends on IRAF, so I'm preparing a new tar

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 08:09:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > I am not a Debian developer, so I cannot propose a GR. I am already > doing what I can to raise the issue's visibility. Neither am I. My problem is that this doesn't seem to be a serious issue: making an exception for license texts

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

Glenn Maynard writes: >> I have not yet thought hard about how to "break" the wording above in >> the sense of there being some way to follow it that takes away what I >> would call an essential software freedom. > > The entire purpose of your proposed wording is to take away an essential > softwa

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:18:00AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Oh. Well, the GFDL with Invariant Sections requires bloat in distributed >> binaries. > > Where the GFDL is used to license programs, it's not something that we > can distribute under the DFSG. [As this co

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:12:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> "Make or distribute" is the biggest problem here. If it said "make and >> distribute", you might be correct. As it is actually written, it >> requires that you not place specific technical obstacles in the

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller wrote: > I appreciate that you think that chmod -r is control, but since (from > a user point of view) it's equivalent to not making the file available > for download I don't think that this is a meaningful point of view. As mentioned elsewhere, the problem is that the GFDL applies t

Re: Re: Re: Your document

Your document is attached. --- Trend GateLock 病毒防護通知 (主機：higp2.gatelock.com.tw) ** 中毒檔案 document_4351.pif 已刪除。 Trend GateLock 病毒防護通知 (主機：higp2.gatelock.com.tw) ** 在檔案 document_4351.pif 中發現病毒 WORM_NETSKY.J。 無法清除病毒，中毒檔案已

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > If you wanted a proposal that fit > your wish list, you should have written one yourself. Unlike some people, I don't have a wish list of non-free things I want to get in Debian. -- Glenn Maynard

Re: CA certificates

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:52:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing > > the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate > > certificates): > > >

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:38:58PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Copyrights restrict the right to make copies, period. Not just the right to > distribute them. Legally, they always have, at least in the US. (They > just aren't enforced terribly often against people who don't distribute, > bec

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 08:09:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > main; I do not see why license texts should be exempt from the current > DFSG. They are not exempt. They are also not programs. So, the additional constraints the DFSG puts on programs do not apply to licenses. -- Raul

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 11:14:01PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 08:09:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > main; I do not see why license texts should be exempt from the current > > DFSG. > > They are not exempt. > > They are also not programs. So, the additional constrain