ACCOUNT DEACTIVATED

2004-12-19 Thread at sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu
This account is no longer active. Thus, your mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.

Re: LCC and blobs

2004-12-19 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Dec 19, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No: it's reporting that the card did activate correctly, but it's not > > the driver's fault. The driver is complete and does not lack anything > > needed to operate the device. > ...except the firmware? No: the driver does not uses th

Re: LCC and blobs

2004-12-19 Thread Raul Miller
> > > No: it's reporting that the card did activate correctly, but it's not > > > the driver's fault. The driver is complete and does not lack anything > > > needed to operate the device. > On Dec 19, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...except the firmware? On Sun, Dec 19, 2004

Re: LCC and blobs

2004-12-19 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Dec 19, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > No: it's reporting that the card did activate correctly, but it's not >> > the driver's fault. The driver is complete and does not lack anything >> > needed to operate the device. >> ...exc

Re: Copyleft font licensing

2004-12-19 Thread Claus Färber
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > * Raul Miller: >> I don't see anything in the GPL which requires source for things >> which have been left out of the program being required. > The subsetted font is not the preferred form of doing modifications to > the font. You don't distribu

IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-19 Thread Justin Pryzby
Hello, As you may recall, I am (unofficially) maintaining the IRAF data analysis package. IRAF includes NCAR from UCAR (.. Atmospheric Research). It was previously decided [1] that the license from NCAR was very much not DFSG-free. However, the NCAR routines are now available under the GPL. I

Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-19 Thread Jan Minar
Hi. I've been referred to xdebug on #postgresql @ freenode, but I will try to avoid it because: (1) It's not in Debian (2) The license is non-free Although the license is non-free as in annoying more then in philosophical, (3) It's not even in the Debian's non-free section AFAICT, the only no

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-19 Thread Justin Pryzby
By the way, I'm not subscribed, please Cc: me. What kind of license is associated with code produced by Yacc? Upstream IRAF apparently has a "UNIX source license" and uses a modified yacc to produce two of the files. The source includes a README: This directory contains the source for t

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-19 Thread Derick Rethans
L.S., On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote: > AFAICT, the only non-free section is: > > http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";> > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor > may "Xdebug" appear in their name, without prior written permission from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-19 Thread Justin Pryzby
This is probably hotly debated, but how do math-algorthm copyrights work? There are lots of these: ==> ./iraf/math/llsq/original_f/qrbd.f <== c subroutine qrbd (ipass,q,e,nn,v,mdv,nrv,c,mdc,ncc) c c.l.lawson and r.j.hanson, jet propulsion laboratory, 1973 jun 12 c to appear in 'solvin

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-19 Thread Raul Miller
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:45:40PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > This is probably hotly debated, but how do math-algorthm copyrights > work? Articles about mathematics, and specific expressions of algorithms, are copyrightable, but the concepts aren't. In the U.S. 17 USC 102 states: In no cas

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-19 Thread Måns Rullgård
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:45:40PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: >> This is probably hotly debated, but how do math-algorthm copyrights >> work? > > Articles about mathematics, and specific expressions of algorithms, > are copyrightable, but the concepts are

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-19 Thread Raul Miller
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 11:29:47PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > And this is probably the reason we have thousands of (probably > invalid) software patents instead. Copyright law is only a minor part of that issue. -- Raul

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-19 Thread Alexander Schmehl
Hi! * Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]: > AFAICT, the only non-free section is: > > http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";> > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor > may "Xdebug" appear in their name, without prior written permission from > [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-19 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi! > > * Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]: > >> AFAICT, the only non-free section is: >> >> http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";> >> 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor >> may "Xdebug" appear in their n

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-19 Thread Jan Minar
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 11:38:16PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > * Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]: > > > AFAICT, the only non-free section is: > > > > http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";> > > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor > > may "Xdebug"

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-19 Thread Jan Minar
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:06:45PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote: > >From the PHP license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt): > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor > may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-19 Thread Alexander Schmehl
* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041220 04:28]: > > Citing Debian Free Software Guidelines [1]: > > = > > 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code > > [..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or > > version number from the original software. [..] > > = > The dif

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-19 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:27:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any > excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of > names is not. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00023.html for

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-19 Thread Josh Triplett
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]: >>>AFAICT, the only non-free section is: >>> >>>http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";> >>>4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor >>>may "Xdebug

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-19 Thread Josh Triplett
Justin Pryzby wrote: > What kind of license is associated with code produced by Yacc? Well, code produced by yacc is derivative both of the yacc input file and the yacc parser being used. > Upstream IRAF apparently has a "UNIX source license" and uses a > modified yacc to produce two of the files

Re: IRAF component relicensed

2004-12-19 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:59:06PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Justin Pryzby wrote: > > What kind of license is associated with code produced by Yacc? > > Presuming this modified yacc isn't trivially replaceable with a Free > yacc, this would prevent these packages from being uploadable to main.