* Glenn Maynard:
> It requires preserving any section titled "History", required adding
> it if it's not there, and requires adding stuff to it.
I agree that this is quite annoying, but the GPL has similar
requirements, although the community at large does not comply with
them.
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Anthony Towns wrote:
>> The Project essentially told us our conclusion ??? the GFDL is not free ?=
>> is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections.=20
>
> So, debian-legal is "us", leaving the rest of the project to be
> "them"?
Well, several of the loudest squallers over-interpretin
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:09:43AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The practical problems beyond the DFSG have always been something
> > we commented in, but not a direct freedom problem themselves. The
> > FSF used to do this too - see their criticism of obnoxious
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:46:16AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > It requires preserving any section titled "History", required adding
> > it if it's not there, and requires adding stuff to it.
>
> I agree that this is quite annoying, but the GPL has similar
> requirements, although the communit
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:28:06AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Not a stupid label in general, but a stupid label for licences. There's
> always a UW. Using the DFSG as some sort of licence certification
> scheme is a really bad idea and organisations that try to do so should
> die messily. Please let's
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:28:06AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Not a stupid label in general, but a stupid label for licences. [...]
> > Please let's concentrate on the software: it's worth looking
> > at licences, but software is the thing of interest.
>
> [...
Hi,
this is an earnest question, the "NOSOURCE" in the name is misleading.
The license can be found at
ftp://tug.ctan.org/pub/tex-archive/fonts/antt/doc/fonts/antt/GUST-FONT-NOSOURCE-LICENSE.txt
and is quite short:
%%% This is a preliminary version, barring acceptance from the LaTeX
%%% Projec
On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:34:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems
> > > free.
...
> > I see two issues mentioned i
"Frank Küster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Except for the source issue. The concrete example, as you might have
guessed, are the ANTP fonts, which are available as PostScript Type1,
TrueType and OpenType fonts.
I have heard a talk of the author, Janusz Nowac
Hi,
assume a document licensed under GFDL, with no invariant sections (and
...) has a front cover text (like "A GNU Manual") and a back cover text
(like "You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU
software. Copies published by the Free Software Foundation raise funds
for GNU de
""Claus Färber"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are two assumptions here that are wrong:
. US residents can only be sued in US courts.
. US courts can only decide on US copyright law.
Speaking of which, are there any cases in which a US court has made a
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
> believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
> the phrase "technical measures" in the context of copyright law.
> Other meanings of "technical me
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
> believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
> the phrase "technical measures" in the context of copyright law.
>From the EUCD (2001/29/EC) Article 6 (3), we have in Engli
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 + MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > It speaks about "false attribution": I cannot imagine how stating
> > "This image is based on the desk image created by Bob" could be
> > considered as false attribution...
>
> I repeat: I think it dep
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
> > believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
> > the phrase "technical measures" in the context of copyright law.
>
> >F
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
> > believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
> > the phrase "technical measures" in th
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:15:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Encrypting a document (whether via GPG or HTTPS) sure seems like a technical
> > measure to obstruct the reading of copies.
>
> In the general case, this is not a technical measu
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I don't think any special attempt to prevent the technical measures
> themselves are necessary, since the GPL's source requirements already
> did that: an encrypted, locked, unmodifiable copy is not source.)
Ok, but the legal right to modify
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/14/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From the EUCD (2001/29/EC) Article 6 (3), we have in English English:
> >the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or
> >component that, in the normal course of its operation, is
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 09:29:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (I don't think any special attempt to prevent the technical measures
> > themselves are necessary, since the GPL's source requirements already
> > did that: an encrypted, locked,
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
> >
> > File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
> > given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GFDL specifically says that it must "clearly and legibly identify you".
> Ambiguity and clarity are opposites, and pseudonyms do not identify you.
My dad's name is "Ron Miller". Are you claiming that his name does
not identify him?
There
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:37:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GFDL specifically says that it must "clearly and legibly identify you".
> > Ambiguity and clarity
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > And the Opaque issue only applies when the transparent copies are not
> > > distributed. It's simple enough to include the transpar
Raul Miller writes:
> File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
>
> File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
> given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not.
Things like the execute bit, not to mention ACLs like those s
25 matches
Mail list logo
