[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
>of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
>the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant?
Well, yes. It's just something that a few people here invented, but
On 1/28/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Like, say, "ordered set of instructions" to mean "computer program"
Hey Prof., how about "a series of instructions"?
>
> > If you won't write something that means
> > anything, is there some reason I should continue replying?
>
> Fe
On 1/28/06, INFONOVA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
Hi!
Educated by Prof. Pedro?
regards,
alexander.
Another dose of pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys (kudos
to Wallace for calling the bluff)...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
>
> On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EM
On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
> There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
> of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
> the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant?
Yeah, since the dissident test has n
Hi,
I am considering packaging latex-mk (http://latex-mk.sourceforge.net/)
for Debian. I am appending below its copyright notice. I think it is
DFSG-compliant, but I am unsure about item 3 and 4. Comments are
appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
--
Rafael
$Id: COPYING,v 1.5 2005/09/30 03:02:06
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
license?
https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf
(sorry for the document format).
Note that in order to download Bio-SPICE from its website it's
necessary to register oneself.
--
Luca Brivio
Web:
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Thank you for the report; it sounds promising, but on the other hand it
sounds as if talking upstream authors[1] into relicensing their
documentation with a CC license will not be an option for etch.
That depends on when 3.0 goes out CC's door. Personally, I'd
Hello,
I hope you can help with some ideas and also clear a few of my
questions. I'm not a lawyer, so I hope, you can give a few hints. I'm
writing manpages for the proprietary ATI driver, which are included in
the Debian package. You can find the source here:
http://cvs.wgdd.de/cgi-bin/cvsweb/f
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
> On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
> > There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
> > of some software to identify themselves would prevent a free use of
> > the software. Does that mean the Dissident test is irrelevant?
>
On 1/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Glenn L. McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all;
> >
> > This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can
> > help straighten me out with this.
> >
> > I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wesley J. Landaker writes:
>
> > On Friday 27 January 2006 20:29, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
> > > of some software to identify themselves would prevent a
I used to be a flag-waving FSF patriot, but for reasons
people familiar with the present GFDL GR debate will
appreciate, the FSF has lost my trust. My question is
as follows. The FSF retains special authority
unilaterally to extend the GPL, LGPL, FDL, etc. For my
own free software, can I take th
What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
license?
https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf
(sorry for the document format).
Note that in order to download Bio-SPICE from its website it's
necessary to register oneself.
--
Luca Brivio
Web:
Thaddeus H. Black writes:
> I used to be a flag-waving FSF patriot, but for reasons
> people familiar with the present GFDL GR debate will
> appreciate, the FSF has lost my trust. My question is
> as follows. The FSF retains special authority
> unilaterally to extend the GPL, LGPL, FDL, etc. Fo
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:05:49PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> I am considering packaging latex-mk
> (http://latex-mk.sourceforge.net/) for Debian. I am appending below
> its copyright notice. I think it is DFSG-compliant, but I am unsure
> about item 3 and 4. Comments are appreciated.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
> What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
> license?
The patent grant is tighter than I'd like; the way I understand it,
you get a copyright license for modified works, but not a patent
grant. So if there is
* Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-28 19:44]:
> Seems to be the standard BSD 4-clause license. Clause 4 is completely
> fine, clause 3 is annoying and imposes a burden on redistribution but
> generally considered free, AFAIK. I wasn't around before June 1999,
> but I expect Debian d
> [snip]
>
> On the matter of freeness of software licensed under the OFL:
>
>>3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
>>Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written permission is
>>granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction applies to all
>>reference
> [snip]
>
> First off; while I am a Debian Developer, and do have some experience
> in auditing licenses for DFSG compliance, I can't make any claims one
> way or another as to whether software licensed under such a license
> will be acceptable for inclusion in main (main being the part of the
> D
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
> derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
> DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted
> in doing thi
Raul Miller writes:
> On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
> > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
> > DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
> > obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy,
> > merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and
> > unmodified copies of the Font Software,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:01:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
> > derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
> > DFSG. The usu
* Alexander Terekhov:
> I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think Moglen
> thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is
> kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception
> for user space).
>
> Any thoughts?
Development
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:35:33PM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> > 3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved
> > Font Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written
> > permission is granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction
> > applies
* Andrew Donnellan:
> Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux
Some developers and organizations have assigned copyright to the FSF.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Nathanael Nerode:
> Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
>
> "No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require
> the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access
> to that work. Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:00:04 +0100 Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Users who install derivatives ("Modified Versions") on their systems
> should not see any of the original names ("Reserved Font Names") in
> their font menus, font properties dialogs, PostScript streams,
> documents that refer to a part
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
> for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
> should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
> instigating the lawsuit.
So
Raul Miller writes:
> On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
> > for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
> > should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
>
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
> > for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
> > should get to override the
On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On that line of reasoning, "people who don't live in California" are,
> too. But we both know how weak arguing on DFSG#5 tends to be.
>
> I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the
> software indicate an EULA, since
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 03:18:32PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 1/29/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the traditional argument is that restrictions on *use* of the
> > software indicate an EULA, since simple copyright can not, in theory,
> > restrict the use of softwa
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
> > > for example, honest but incorrect claims.
35 matches
Mail list logo
