Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The
original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and
Debian needs to fix it.
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>> Yes, and this i
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
>> or misfeatures in the font?
> Not if they choose a different name.
> For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
> correct rendering of docueme
On Jan 30, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not if they choose a different name.
> > For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
> > correct rendering of docuements.
> You do, of course, mean "preserve _incorrect_ rendering of documents" ;-)
Yes.
--
ciao,
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The same argument applies equally well to programs. We should be
> > intelligent enough in our fixing of bugs in fonts not to break
> > existing documents,
>
> That's plain impossible. A bug in a font could be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> On Jan 30, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Not if they choose a different name.
>> > For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
>> > correct rendering of docuements.
>> You do, of course, mean "preserve _incorr
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This exact argument can be made to apply to programs. We as
> distributors (or our users as users) should be able to make the
> determination whether it's appropriate to break compatibility to fix
> the bug, or keep compatibility and live with the bug. A
Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 00:42 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry:
> Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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 d
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > You can still claim that the court in question does not have
> > jurisdiction over the parties.
>
> You can claim that the moon is cheese too, if you want.[1] The point
> is that in order for the cour
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:17:47 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Here's the "attribution" version:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
> >
> > 6.5 This Licence is governed by the law of Scotland and the parties
> >
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:25:34 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
[...]
> > if you've got a font that is in wide use and regarded as stable,
> > changing the kerning is a design decision and should in fact change
> > the name under which the font is available to th
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This discussion seems to have gone into the weeds about WHY someone
would want to make a change and whether Debian is able to make such
changes reasonably.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Well, only in part. A font that you can't rely on is mostly
"olive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they operated in accordance with Debian. Debian-legal has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > 6.5 This Licence is governed by the law of Scotland and the parties
> > accept the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Scotland to
> > decide any action or claim directed against the Licensor.
> Doesn't this cause problems when the code is forked? If someone
Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 00:42 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry:
> > Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, the end of the file says
> >
> > (c) Copyright 2002,2003 by ATI Technologies Inc. All rights reserved
> >
> > which means that you
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:39:33PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> If it's not a copyleft:
> * the Scotland-venue clause in the original license only applies to claims
> against the original licensor of the original software
> * the French forker uses a license without that clause for his own
>
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:34:25 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> "olive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free
> > software if
> there were in accordance to the FSF.
>
> I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at
> defending
On 1/31/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "olive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
> there were in accordance to the FSF.
>
> I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
> softw
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:52:00PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 1/31/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "olive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
> > there were in accordance to the FSF.
> >
> > I pers
19 matches
Mail list logo
