Op do, 16-03-2006 te 04:35 -0500, schreef Nathanael Nerode:
> Jesse van den Kieboom wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As I tried to do an ITP my package
> > (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=347934) got rejected
> > because the copyrights weren't in order. Now I'm a bit in the open
> > bec
Branden,
I am wondering if you will request that SPI, Inc. obtain from its legal
council, on behalf of the Debian Project, an answer to the following
questions:
1. Does the term "technical measures" as used in GFDL 2's "you may
not use technical measures to obstruct or control the readin
On 3/17/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Branden,
>
> I am wondering if you will request that SPI, Inc. obtain from its legal
> council, on behalf of the Debian Project, an answer to the following
> questions:
>
>1. Does the term "technical measures" as used in GFDL 2's "you
Anthony Towns
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:39:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think that this very thread is an attempt to construct some
> > reasonably self-consistent interpretations that we can ask the
> > developers to decide between.
>
> The developers have already decided. Surely y
is not published by M$. (there might be an exeption for some unusual
very complex word documents not fully understandable by openoffice, but
from my experience this is only a very tiny proportion of word documents
using some special feature like macros, etc.).
Your last sentence shows that th
Hi,
I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order to
publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that I am
involved in the software developement so I can obviously propose to rewrite
some parts of the licence)
I read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2
Dominik Margraf wrote:
>
> http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/
>
> and Wild Magic
>
> http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf
>
> Are the licenses of these libraries above compliant to Debian's
> requirements?
Questions about the freeness of a license belong on debian-lega
On 3/17/06, Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html
"the copyright holders give permission to link the code of portions of
this program with the OpenSSL"
Copyright holders just can't give such permission because it doesn'
Dominik Margraf wrote:
and Wild Magic
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf
Text:
Softwaree License Agreement for the Wild Magic (Version 3)
Library Version 1.0c, April 29, 2005
This Software License Agreement is a legal agreement between Geometric
Tools, Inc., a
Nor
Dominik Margraf wrote:
http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/
TEXT:
Public license
In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like with certain
differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE Technology within
commercial environments and you are obliged to acknowledge its
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a
> document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice
> might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available
> to the public: the subset of word fully understan
Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order to
> publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that I am
> involved in the software developement so I can obviously propose to rewrite
> some parts of the
Wildmagic:
The license *might* be free. It is certainly gpl-incompatable.
(c) The Software may be used, edited, modified, copied, and distributed by
you for commercial products provided that such
products are not intended to wrap The Software solely for the
purposes of selling it as if it were
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a
document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice
might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available
to the public: the subset of wo
I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's a legitimate
goal for a free software license to rule out proprietary formats such as
word documents. But I think it's quite clear that the GFDL does rule
out using word documents as source -- though the recent GR confuses this
somewhat
On 17 Mar 2006 11:45:35 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> resolving the license incompatibility.
That problem exists only in the GNU Republic where linking constitutes
creation of copyleft-infringing "derived works" (and where owners of
copies of software don't enjoy rights a
On 3/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> try to have a court declaring the GPL illegal which would maybe make GPL
> documents unredistribuable.
Uhmm, if you mean Wallace...
The GPL is an egregious and pernicious misuse of copyright that rises to
the level of an antitrust viol
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and
> although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very
> usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities.
Yes. And there's still some hope that it will happen, but ev
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
> of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to
> do so, but the intent of this clause remains very clear.
This requirement does not apply wh
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for working
> > with .c source code, in the general case.
>
> If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the
> preferred form for modification.
I don't know of
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
> > unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
>
> I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but
> if a marker pen can be class
Raul Miller writes:
> On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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
Raul Miller writes:
> On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That situation isn't my main concern. File permissions clearly
> > "obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
> > you make or distribute" as well as meet the definition of a
> > technological measure
On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue.
>
> It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted above
> is clearly
On 3/16/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is all very well for the DFSG, but I just noticed that the DRM
> restriction, read literally, prohibits placing copies on ftpmaster (since
> access to those copies for most people is blocked by technical measures).
I believe that the r
Raul Miller writes:
> On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Raul Miller writes:
> > > On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue.
> >
> > It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
> two operations:
>
> cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt
> chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt
How do those two operations prevent you from making fu
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
> > two operations:
> >
> > cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt
> > chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt
>
> How do those two
* Jérôme Marant:
> Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
> (Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
> a dedicated package.
What about the Texinfo documentation? Currently, it's GFDL plus
invariant sections.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:07:05PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Adam McKenna writes:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
> > > two operations:
> > >
> > > cp some-gfdl-licensed-document
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jérôme Marant:
>
>> Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
>> (Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
>> a dedicated package.
>
> What about the Texinfo documentation? Currently, it's GFDL plus
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:07:05PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Adam McKenna writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > > So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
> > > > two operations:
> > > >
>
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for
> > > working
> > > with .c source code, in the general case.
> >
> > If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _i
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's a legitimate
> > goal for a free software license to rule out proprietary formats such as
> > word documents. But I think it's quite clear that the GFDL does rule
> > out using word documents as
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
> > of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to
> > do so, but the intent o
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:41:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Adam McKenna writes:
> > > Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
> > > or control the further reading and copying of the work.
> >
> > Not in the context of copyright law, as Raul already pointed out.
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
> or control the further reading and copying of the work.
Is it allowed to keep a hard copy of a GFDL document in a locked house?
That too prevents further reading and copying of the
Adam McKenna writes:
> What he meant was, the operations you describe are not operations that
> prevent users who already have a copy of the document from exercising their
> rights as granted by the license and copyright law.
>
> He's essentially saying that what you are describing is outside of
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either 1:
> > "the work is distributable", or 2: "distributability is not relevant
> > to freeness". A GR that calls a work
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
> > or control the further reading and copying of the work.
>
> Is it allowed to keep a hard copy of a GFDL document in a locked house?
> That too prevents
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are really you suggesting that Word documents qualify? Not only does
> the public availability requirement refer to the specification of the
> format (not the contents of the document), but there's still the
> question of whether it can be edited "str
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:34:40PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> If you copy a copyrighted work, you need permission from law (which is
> limited to things like a single backup copy, fair use, and so forth)
> or from the copyright owner. Under copyright law and under the
> language of the FDL, it
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:34:40PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > If you copy a copyrighted work, you need permission from law (which is
> > limited to things like a single backup copy, fair use, and so forth)
> > or from the copyright owner. Under copyright law and under
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
> not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
Give an example of one.
> > What part of copyright law states that you can only have one backup copy?
>
> 1
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've tried contacting Janusz Nowacki on 28 Apr 2005 and 14 Sep 2005
but received no answer. He's obviously alive, so this could be caused
either by his lack of time or a mail misconfiguration somewhere on the
way;
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either
>> > 1: "the work is distributable", or 2: "distributability is not
>> >
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
> > not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
>
> Give an example of one.
The United Kingdom legislation contains f
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
> > > unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
> >
> > I can see some difficulty in proving they are
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:34:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
> > > not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
> >
>
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:44:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's
> not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before.
How exactly is a brick wall not technological? Do brick walls occur
naturally?
> Why is distribution imp
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:41:29 +0400 olive wrote:
> The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and
> although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very
> usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities.
I doubt that this will ever happen, now that
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Adam McKenna wrote:
> I didn't mean "give an example of such a jurisdiction", I meant "give an
> example of infringing, non-distributional copying".
Umm, copying that occurs in such a jurisdiction?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
"Jérôme Marant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The following files have already been identified as offending:
etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Following are are nonfree documents found in cygwin's Emacs disto besides
wha
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Pierre Machard wrote:
> I am wondering what an upstream author was supposed to do in order
> to publish a sotfware under GPL when it is using OpenSSL? (Note that
> I am involved in the software developement so I can obviously
> propose to rewrite some parts of the licence)
Bey
Then what purpose did RMS have with the bit about publicly available
specifications and being editable with generic text editors? What was
he ruling out, if not things like word documents?
I think he want to rule out formats only understandable by proprietary
sofwares. It seems that RMS was n
For the fact that it is or not legitimate to restrict free document to
open format; I would say that IMHO it is at least acceptable since
otherwise it would make it unusable by someone who have decided to use
only free softwares. Another consequence would be that a derivative work
of a free d
57 matches
Mail list logo
