"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant.
> >
> > Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have
> > written it oneself) and in I didn't find "technical measures" o
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On the other hand, in the hypothetical case we are talking about,
> Charlie doesn't say "This image is created by Bob" or otherwise tries to
> pass it off as a work by Bob.
> He clearly states that "This image is *based on* the desk image created
> by Bob" (emph
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...]
> > MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of "technological measure" and you
> > have not explained why you think that should be ignored.
>
> I did, in the part of the e-mail you snipped.
Yow!
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
> be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
> me to buy everyone in the world a computer? [...]
Only if you are arguing that the FDL clause's mea
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
> > reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that "and"
> > and "or" are synonymous and that I am insane. All fa
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Adam McKenna wrote:
> > >That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use
> > >one
> > >copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies
> > >on
> > >mu
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:29:24PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
> > be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
> > me to buy everyone in the world a co
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:03:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
> > > reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...]
> > > MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of "technological measure" and you
> > > have not explained why you think that should be ig
#include
* Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
> > >> D-L v. JS, now that's a flame war I'd like to see ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord
> > >contains > invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using
> > >device > names), so it
Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic follow.
If you can't stand to read this all, the brief summary:
* As well as the ones you spotted before,
DISTRIB, GNU, MOTIVATION, and gfdl.1 are non-free.
* There are a lot of files without any copyright or licensing inf
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called
> "debian-legal" would take one sentence from a license, read it without
> considering the context or any of the the other text in the license,
> and declare it non-free.
>
> Do you think that t
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:19:30AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Maybe a disgruntled friend/family member/employee tells him. Perhaps
> some software vendor installed spyware or other monitoring software.
> Who knows? That's not the kind of question we generally consider when
> deciding whether a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode)
> And the license-free graphics files. These probably have a better
> claim to be "part of emacs" and under the general license than the
> rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
> in these files.
Some of these files look like C code
On 21 Mar 2006 00:59:55 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > > Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is
> > > governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does
> > > copyright law no longer apply to dealing with
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Therefore my proposal is to narrow the licensor's-intent principle to
>>> clauses of the general kind that are problematic in the GFDL. The
>>> description in point (a) above is m
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:04PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>> So the GR promotes a "do what I mean, not what I say" approach to
>>> license interpretation for the GFDL -- it does *not* claim that the
>>> literal reading of the DRM restrictio
On 3/21/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case: if we interpret the FDL with the legal definition,
> FDL'd works fail DFSG; if we interpret the FDL with your
> bizarre literal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG. A null diff.
How?
Please spell out your reasoning here.
(1) I don't thin
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:57:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/10/msg00198.html
>> for previous discussion (from Googling for '"all rights reserved"
>> debian-legal'). It's not a problem.
>
> And what if a script has
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I assert that their arguments are not part of the position statement
>> (= not part of what was approved by vote) and that trying to interpret
>> hidden meanings of the position statement is daft.
>
> As far as I can see our choices a
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? [...]
> We can ignore it for your chmod example, because [...]
I disagree, as previously stated.
> > I'm in disbelief that some seem willing to base licence
Adam McKenna writes:
> > > > And since you're stating "yeah, I used them" you've said they're not
> > > > for
> > > > archival purposes only ??? they're for use as well.
> > >
> > > And in a court where I am not required to incriminate myself, how would he
> > > prove it?
> >
> > The Fifth Am
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Finally, I don't "declare it non-free" and have spoken against such
> unhelpful ambiguous language in the past.
Then we are in agreement.
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> olive wrote:
>> Some might argue that a court will read the GFDL in a more litteral
>> sense. I do not think that because it seems very obvious that the
>> copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do
>> with your own copy. Of course I might be
Courtesy of Groklaw:
Daniel Wallace's suit against the FSF was dismissed and he has been ordered
to pay the FSF's court costs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127
Just thought I'd bring a ray of sunshine into Alexander Terekhov's day.
--
G. Branden Robinson
Hi!I have come across with the Wild Magic library, which has its own license and has not been debianized to date. Here is the link to the license agreement:
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdfIt looks like that is has a qt4-like license style. Therefore would this license
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic
> follow.
> termcap.src
This file is (mechanically generated) from ncurses' terminfo.src,
and a moment's consideration would show that there is substantial
creative content, not j
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/19/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If it's someone else's GPL'd C code, then in your hypothetical example,
> > > he's supposed provide source to his students should they ask for it.
> >
>
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:19:23 + MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On the other hand, in the hypothetical case we are talking about,
> > Charlie doesn't say "This image is created by Bob" or otherwise
> > tries to pass it off as a work by Bob.
> > He clearly states that "Thi
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:45:12 -0500 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> That's why I think the GR was, frankly, _stupid_. Crucially, I think
> it's a violation of the trust that Debian's users have in us.
And that's the worst result of the GR outcome.
All that time spent in trying to detect issues and pointi
Hi all,
it seems that Savannah won't accept a GPL'd project, if the author wants
to release under GPLv2 only (that is, without dual-licensing under "any
later version" of the GNU GPL).
For the details about a real case (mine!), interested readers can dig
http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?func=detai
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:52:16 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Has anyone found another URL for the "real" X11 license (the one
> > that used to live at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html)?
>
> Gentoo has a fairly comprehensive collection of lice
On 3/21/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows
> > the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come
> > with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your
> > example).
>
> I don't quite understand what
Le Mercredi 22 Mars 2006 01:13, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
> It seems that I must find another place to have my project hosted...
>
> Sourceforge provides services by running proprietary tools: I don't want
> to get used to something that is non-free (and could even suddenly
> become only avail
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 15:48, Dominik Margraf wrote:
> I have come across with the Wild Magic library, which has its own license
> and has not been debianized to date. Here is the link to the license
> agreement:
>
> http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf
>
> It looks like t
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic
> follow.
>
> * There are a lot of files without any copyright or licensing information,
> and upstream probably will want to fix this. I would remove a lot of these
> even if they turn out to b
> > celibacy.1
> > condom.1
> > -- Post-1988 (1992).
>
> Probably a better fit for the funny-manpages package than the emacs
> package.
> > sex.6
> > -- Issued without copyright notice prior to 1988 (1987),
> > so it's in the public domain.
>
> Modified since then, according to emacs CVS.
"Dominik Margraf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
I have come across with the Wild Magic library, which has its own license
and has not been debianized to date. Here is the link to the license
agreement:
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3Licen
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Francesco Poli wrote:
> it seems that Savannah won't accept a GPL'd project, if the author
> wants to release under GPLv2 only (that is, without dual-licensing
> under "any later version" of the GNU GPL).
>
> For the details about a real case (mine!), interested readers can di
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 11:38:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:19:23 + MJ Ray wrote:
>
> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On the other hand, in the hypothetical case we are talking about,
> > > Charlie doesn't say "This image is created by Bob" or otherwise
Florent Bayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le Mercredi 22 Mars 2006 01:13, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> [...]
>> It seems that I must find another place to have my project hosted...
>>
>> Sourceforge provides services by running proprietary tools: I don't want
>> to get used to something that is no
Branden Robinson wrote:
Courtesy of Groklaw:
Daniel Wallace's suit against the FSF was dismissed and he has been ordered
to pay the FSF's court costs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060320201540127
Just thought I'd bring a ray of sunshine into Alexander Terekhov's day.
He will p
42 matches
Mail list logo
