On Thursday 21 July 2005 04:49 pm, Gerasimos Melissaratos wrote:
> X-Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> X-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'd like to create a package for ng-spice, which seems to be governed by
> two licenses, which I include herein. In fir
|--==> Francesco Poli writes:
FP> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:17:29 +0100 Free Ekanayaka wrote:
FP> [...]
FP> | >>zynaddsubfx is also a must
FP> [...]
FP> | The licence is a bit "strange", I know, but it is still the
FP> | softsynth with the best sounds that come out of the box.
>>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:02:11AM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> |--==> Francesco Poli writes:
> FP> I fail to see anything non-free or troublesome in all this.
>
> Yes, I think you're right. I just reported what I thought was the
> issue here... I don't know what Paul Naska (author) wou
Dear Sirs,
My name is Rob Collyer, and I'm the owner of webforumz.com.
I wanted to let you know that I am interested in exchanging links with
you.
Webforumz.com has a Google Page rank (PR) of 6 and I am sure your site
will benefit from exchanging links with us.
We have just added a new resou
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> License 1 contains a limitation on use ("educational, research and non-profit
> purposes, without fee") which is a violation of DFSG #6. License 2 is less
> obvious, but I personally believe that a provision that forbids charging a
> fee for distributi
On 7/21/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you mean:
>
> The story that is circulated now about the tweaking of the S-box is
> that it was to make DES more resistant to differential cryptanalysis,
> which was unknown at the time.
I tend to give Bruce Schneier a certain amo
Greetings,
I searched archive of the debian-legal list and it seems that the
proposed European Union Public License (EUPL) has not been discussed
here yet.
As this is clearly an important subject (and I am sure that it is
closely related to the software patents agenda), I would like to ask,
if an
On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > License 1 contains a limitation on use ("educational, research and
> > non-profit purposes, without fee") which is a violation of DFSG #6.
> > License 2 is less obvious, but I personally believe t
Ales Cepek wrote:
I searched archive of the debian-legal list and it seems that the
proposed European Union Public License (EUPL) has not been discussed
here yet.
As this is clearly an important subject (and I am sure that it is
closely related to the software patents agenda), I would like to as
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote:
> I would like to ask,
> if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with
> the Debian Social Contract.
Good question. The EUPL draft is available at
http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl
Now is time to propo
Ivo Danihelka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote:
>> I would like to ask,
>> if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with
>> the Debian Social Contract.
>
> Good question. The EUPL draft is available at
> http://europa.eu.int/i
> Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by
> the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications
> thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification
> or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a
> work as a Derivative Work; this
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Kellogg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> License 1 contains a limitation on use ("educational, research and
> non-profit purposes, without fee") which is a violation o
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian M.
Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
There is no such thing as software that isn't copyrighted. All original
expression that is fixed in a tangible form is immediately copyrighted (at
least, that's the U.S. rule). There is still lots of debate as to wheth
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:05:09PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> The rule, afaict (and I'm not an American), is that copyright *cannot*
> *be* *enforced*, which is not the same thing at all ...
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#piu
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
* Rich Walker cites the EUPL:
> Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending,
> renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making
> available, on-line or off-line, copies of the Work at the disposal of
> any other physical or legal person.
New licen
* Anthony W. Youngman:
> Actually, doesn't the GPL itself contain exactly the same restriction,
> just worded a bit differently?
>
> The GPL forbids charging for the code itself.
Only for the source code which you must make available when you
distribute binaries, you may not charge for anything
* Matthew Garrett:
> There's two main issues here.
>
> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
> modification?
>
> I don't believe so,
We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
with you.
Certainly we require that the DFSG apply to documentation
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050722 23:47]:
> * Matthew Garrett:
> > There's two main issues here.
> >
> > 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
> > modification?
> >
> > I don't believe so,
>
> We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagre
* Andreas Barth:
> Actually, the DFSG says:
> | 2. Source Code
> |
> | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> | source code as well as compiled form.
>
> Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main.
It's clear from the context (and previous disc
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:47:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > 2) Does a GPLed work have to include the preferred form of modification?
> >
> > Probably, and this may include the source code for the graphics.
> > However, this may also be affected by the copyright holder's
> > interpretation o
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > Actually, the DFSG says:
> > | 2. Source Code
> > |
> > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> > | source code as well as compiled form.
> >
> > Obviously e.g. fonts are no pr
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > Actually, the DFSG says:
> > | 2. Source Code
> > |
> > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> > | source code as well as compiled form.
> >
> > Obviously e.g. fonts are no pr
* Steve Langasek:
>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>> be interpreted as "software".
>
> No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend
> the DFSG and this still says "program", not "software", I don't see how you
> can claim it *
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
>
>> There's two main issues here.
>>
>> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
>> modification?
>>
>> I don't believe so,
>
> We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
> with you.
* Matthew Garrett:
>> I think it's not acceptable to yse pregenerated files to prevent
>> software from entering contrib. (Look at all the Java programs, for
>> instance.) If there's a povray dependency, the software cannot be
>> included in main.
>
> Yes, but *WHY* do you think that?
It makes
Dear Debian legal,
I have a few questions about software developement. One of them is whether
a program written in e.g. Fortran by me or somebody else (who owns the
copyright) is converted to C (not f2c). How is copyright changed and what
about patent issues (maybe not relevant).
Further question
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
>> Yes, but *WHY* do you think that?
>
> It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files.
> Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive.
Not all pregenerated files are difficult to modify.
>> If there existed reason
On 7/22/05, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files.
> Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive.
That's an argument from maintainability, not from freeness. The two
are, in my view anyway, distinct though related judgments.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:40:00AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>From a technical point of view, Java bytecode is as good as
> > uncommented source code. The Java-to-bytecode compilers are not very
> > sophisticated.
>
> We're happy to accept uncomm
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
> it harder to understand.
>
> The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source. The
> latter is obfuscation, and is not source at all. Assuming what Floria
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG
> free, but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine
> for main?
I've no idea if it's fine for main,[1] but it's clearly DFSG Free.
Whether a work is DFSG Free is a sepa
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
> > it harder to understand.
> >
> > The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source.
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG free,
>> but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine for main?
>
> Yes; as noble a goal as is writing go
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
> been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they
> work. Both are
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
> been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they
> work. Both are r
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:07:09AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at peff.net.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You s
On 7/22/05, Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say I write a program in C code and compile it to assembly
> language, which I distribute. Somebody else writes an equivalent program
> directly in assembly language and distributes it. The distributed
> products contain the same amount of in
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:48:43PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> We know perfectly well that the NVidia driver is in the condition it's
> in partly because its development is funded by a profit-seeking entity
> that has no wish to destabilize its market position, either by making
> it easier f
On 7/22/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, we'll take something as source that we know isn't,
> because we like nVidia. ...
Hey, I didn't say I liked the idea myself. I'm just calling it like I
see it. I would say that the core functionality of the nv driver is
not m
40 matches
Mail list logo
