Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free

On Jul 9, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:54:05AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Package: ocaml Version: 3.07.2a-2 Followup-For: Bug #227159 The compilers are also distributed under the QPL, which is And ? What is the problem ? Even RMS and the FSF is not

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > > Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your > opinion. Mark only one. > > [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published >

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Joerg Wendland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote: >> Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG. >> Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in >> Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

did you just come up with a rephrasing of the DFSG? -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Keith Dunwoody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> Joerg Wendland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote: >>> >>>>Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible wi

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

thless, or that the author is evil. Someone who writes a work and licenses it under the GFDL does a constructive and morally good thing. It is not as constructive or as good as if he put it under the GPL or the MIT/X11 license, but it is not evil. However, that work is not free, and Debian should not i

Re: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?

> obtained a suitable license and just forgot to update the copyright > notice? Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is essentially "MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone." -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

to technology - a LOT of > them. The example is meant to show a flaw in the GFDL.) Actually, isn't there a complicated set of trademark and patent claims preventing manufacture of a CD reader without paying money to Phillips and some trade organizations? This m

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:25:27 -0400 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote: >> David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Less likely, though I certainly wouldn't say it's impossible, is a judge >

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

leave loopholes or cover too much: it will either be exploitable or non-free. This is a social problem, and best solved with social means, not with precise technical phrasing. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is >> essentially "MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product >> alone.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

books, I own the copyright on the compilation, despite having only removed text. The original authors, of course, retain their copyrights on both their whole books and on the chapters I used, and I'd better have their permission before I try this. As long as there is creative expression in

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

om to remove political statements in most cases (for > example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections > in documenation. > > I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation. Your argument has false premises. Wan

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

y, non-software-related invariants would be rejected, at least. :-) But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-secondary when distributed as part of Debian GNU/Whatever? -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > >> You are incorrect. Copyright law limits how you may copy or >> distribute the code. The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these >> limits. >> The GPL itself takes away nothing.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

macs, but only the FSF, as the copyright holder of both works, can distribute a combined work of Emacs and the Emacs Manual. I cannot distribute a package consisting of Emacs and Brian's GFDL'd Emacs Manual, because the GPL does not permit me to link my G

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

other than world-readable, are probably surmountable with a new version of the GFDL. The ability of a vi-worshipping author to, say, add an invariant section in his math-in-lisp text on editor choice, thus forbidding use of anything from that text in any

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2003-08-28 01:28:54 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > "Enjoy" is not a term I would use to describe the process of > > experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were > > freely licensed, I would certainly be able to

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples, > > offers a trade. Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU > > FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade > > him some permissions in exc

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > >>>Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law. >> No, any given work may have slightly different restrictions in >> different domains of copyright l

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

a > wider audience, many of whom are stupid or insane. I'm fairly convinced that somewhere there is a mailing list or SlashRMS server which is featuring an article summarized by: "Debian's going to force Emacs to be distributed without a manual. You n

Re: Licence oddity in Securing Debian Manual

licit permission" comment would be that it's under the GFDL, with a special "linking with the Securing Debian Manual" exception -- unlikely, but the only way to know is to ask Ratti. -Brian > Please file a bug against www.debian.org, and feel free to quote this > message. -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Bug#156287: Advice on Drip (ITP #156287)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes: > >> The ban on use of circumvention devices for copy-prevention schemes is >> probably toothless, given the fair use doctrine. However, the >> following activities ba

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

ne of those who used the nonsense "Yes, because documentation is not software!" or "None of these represent my opinion, because documentation is not software!" Whether or not documentation can be software is irrelevant to that question, and you look like a mindless zealot when you respond in such a way. The question is "Is software licensed only under the GFDL Free Software in the terms of the DFSG?" Nothing else. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?

> granted to reuse his speech? You don't: if you understand him, you can > regive his speech at the infinite. His speech has not been fixed in a tangible form. > If we were about to make a license for everything, speeches would be > licensed too... But see copyright law for references to performances, perhaps with a side-trip to see the Grateful Dead. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?

ding -- as soon as it was in fixed, tangible form. You might find USC 17 interesting reading, or the last 30 months of Debian-Legal traffic. > And as you noticed, the important point is to be able to regive the > ideas. Which is already possible with any book. There

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

riant section are not what I qualified the > "manual part" of a manual. Basically, the most important content of > the manual is not about to be invariant. OK. So if I want to distribute just the "manual part" of a manual... oh, look, I've got to bring all this pean

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

t of the GNU system, or are software. Still think it's OK for them to not meet the four freedoms or the DFSG? > If some people were about to change the licenses in the way you > describe, they would be discontinuing the GNU project and not be > entitled to change the GNU licenses. Heh. You just wait til my brother comes along, he's far larger and meatier than I am. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: documentation eq software ?

uld you like the GPL or the DFSG to be variant? Fortunately, they both are non-invariant (the GPL preamble is invariant but removable, but the license text is not). This is wonderful: it means, for example, that authors of a hypothetical "Free Invariant Document Guidelines" will be able to derive from the DFSG. But the authors of a "Free Document Manifesto" will not be able to derive from the GNU Manifesto, because it is not Free. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

no >> license to the code whatsoever). > > You seem to impley that the FSF has permission from sun to apply the > GPL to the relevant code. Otherwise would _this_ license not be > allowed to be treated as under GPL, but under a compatible license. > > Do you have a proof for this permission? Well, Sun distributes glibc, doesn't it? -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: documentation eq software ?

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : >> > >> > Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are >> > invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal >> > feelings

GFDL (Was Re: documentation eq software ?)

The very text of the GFDL which you quote gives permission for translations as the *only* kind of derivative work possible for Invariant Sections: in particular, annotations are not permitted. Either way, we've gotten way off on a tangent. The GFDL does not meet the DFSG. I present two pieces of

Re: Can the FSF be corrupted

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : > >> You argue that RMS is incorruptible? > > I do. > >> I present as a counterargument the GFDL. > > The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the

Re: Can the FSF be corrupted

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There no contradiction with the Invariant part option: no invariant > part can describe a particular function. > You can provide an accurate documentation without changing a text > written by the original author that explain why he started to write > the s

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoting paul cannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > >> How about this scenario: >> >> 1- A hostile group gets control of the FSF (treachery, trickery, >>bribery, lawsuits, ...?) >> >> 2- They release a new version of the GPLv4, which states that "this >>sof

Re: documentation eq software ?

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If the GFDL invariant section was used to include political statement > that have nothing to do with computers (like racist statement, as > proposed before), I would find normal to trash these documentation > that use the GFDL invariant section for a purp

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

quot;for non-commercial use" does not restrict the distribution, but rather the use of the software. For example, if I had a copy of Emacs with a license "for non-commercial use only," I could not use it to write programs for pay. Those licenses discriminate agains

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * "Brian T. Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 15:32]: >> Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> * Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 18:46]: >>>> In

Re: vrms and contrib installers

sible: remove the package without purging it. If you want the installer and the installed non-free software gone, purge the package. You have not studied this issue even enough to make factual complaints. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GPL preamble removal

e "Terms and Conditions" section of the GPL, retitled as "Sniffen GPL"? As far as I can tell, this meets the requirements for creating a new license based on the GPL, and meets the requirements for distributing GPL'd software. Thanks for your time, Brian -- Brian T. Sn

Re: GPL preamble removal

Keith Dunwoody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2. >> I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and >> history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Se

Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF

t further information on this decision[2][3] have so > far been unsuccessful. > > [1] > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01022.html > [2] > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01210.html > [3] > http://lis

Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:28:42PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> I think it would be more accurate to say that neither of these >> worthies is willing to delay Sarge for removal of GFDL works. The >> GNU Emacs, GCC, a

Re: Attribution-ShareAlike License

edit PDF files? If not, then Florian may have a > point. Emacs. Vim. PDF files *are*, to some extent, editable as text. You probably won't enjoy the experience, but they're not any worse than most machine-generated postscript. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would appreciate if in future you would restrict you comments > to the need for the Invariant sections within the GFDL. > > The issue at hand for Debian is whether to include GFDL-covered > manuals in the Debian GNU/Linux system. I am stick

Re: Software definition, was: A possible GFDL compromise

language. In English, "program" carries denotation of executability, while "software" often but not always carries a connotation of executability, but never has such denotation. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

t of keys. Some not-very-useful keys are in the source, and some very useful keys are on the DRM medium. Alternately, many of the TCPA tools will make good use of this situation. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 12:15 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > >>> GPL 6 doesn't say that you may place restrictions on some copies, as >>> long as your provide an unrestricted copy as well. I

Re: Export clauses in XFree86 licensing

ient will promptly notify SGI of such claim. > > Similar to the above, but only requires notifying SGI (not all users as > above). Assuming that SGI owns the copyright to the licensed work, this is > slightly better than the above. > > Both of these clauses fail the Desert Island t

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

ws you to make > any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX. This is not true. There is no way for me to create a work of free software which is a derivative work of the Emacs Manual. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Unidentified subject!

the GFDL's implementation violates DFSG 6. There is *no* work of free software which can be created as a derivative work of a GFDL-licensed manual with invariant sections. Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "dis

Re: "Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots" was: A possible GFDL compromise

a more free society. Though the GFDL behaves similarly, I see a pretty clear line between them: in a world where all works are available under the GPL, everyone will be free. In an all-GFDL world, the mishmash of invariant sections mean that people will still not be free, and we might be further f

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes: > >>> The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical >>> substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make >>> any changes you

Re: Unidentified subject!

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > >> Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to >> violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source cod

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

ools. For me, printed or not, a Program must be Free > Software, the technical parts of a manual must be Free Software. I quite agree with you. > Fortunately, Debian only ships software... It saves time. > > (PS: I think that the purpose of this non-DFSG logo is perfectly > sensible.) > > > -- > Mathieu Roy > > Homepage: > http://yeupou.coleumes.org > Not a native english speaker: > http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

bian.org. I forgot one thing: you can copy the data on the CD, but not the packaging art. The packaging art is clearly not software -- it's not even digital -- so this is much less of an issue. -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Unidentified subject!

"Brian W. Carver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anthony DeRobertis writes: >> I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out >> that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a >> violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in sourc

Re: Unidentified subject!

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> >> I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of >> DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted. > > Ah

Re: GPL preamble removal

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > >>OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2. >>I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and >>history notes. I wish to give it to a friend.

Re: What does GFDL do?

> verbatim copying, which doesn't seem to grant us anything usefull.] > > > Don Armstrong -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: What does GFDL do?

L by not including a copy of the GPL with each GPL-licensed package, but instead having a common-licenses directory containing the GPL on every Debian system? I understand that these are questions with complicated answers, and I appreciate your efforts to answer them. -Brian -- Brian T. Sni

Re: PennMUSH license concerns.

f the e-mail exchange must be kept confidential, a statement from Mr. Schwartz to this effect and listing the various copyright holders who have given permission will do. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

ill be written to replace them, presumably forked from the last DFSG-free manuals. So I find your apparent justification for Invariant political tracts -- that without them being Invariant sections tied to the documentation, they won't get enough air time to promote Free Software -- somewhat

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be > >hard to put them in a program. > > In a *binary executable* ?!?! That's what I'm talking about here. > > I am not sure if you are right; this might be impossible or it m

Re: Unidentified subject!

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program > and documentation, as far as I can tell. > > Hello is an example program. Yes... and thus both program and documentation. > It is difficult > to deal with s

Re: Starting to talk

free documents, or to admit that you have no such set of guidelines and merely want useful FSF works included in Debian, regardless of the freedoms these grant Debian's users. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think > > it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program. > > A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals. > > And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as > t

Re: Unidentified subject!

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the > object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the > Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different? > > That is a cheap shot, because it

Re: What does GFDL do?

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > While you are free to state the terms by which the GFDL should be > interpreted for GNU documentation, this is not always the case. We have > in the past seen cases where copyright holders have interpreted > seemingly unambiguous state

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

t > that we would agree to use a different definition of software than the > one we are accustomed to in certain contexts. But your question, "Is this MP3 file software?" is itself biased. Consider the alternatives: 1. "Is this MP3 file software or hardware?" 2. "Can a

Re: GFDL

have been invited to initiate it. We have often explained our reasoning to you and other GNU members who asked. We have asked for your reasoning and been rebuffed. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : > >> Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> "Software" is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of >> >> "

Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?

Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> >If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can >> >not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was >> >source to begin with. (I assu

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : > >> >> 1. "Is this MP3 file software or hardware?" >> > >> > This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which >> > definitio

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation > is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on > http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the > program, for any purpose'. Si

Re: coupling software documentation and political speech in the GFDL

Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech >> to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it >> may have been designed in part to achive

Re: committee for FSF-Debian discussion

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes: > The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding the > FSF - Debian discussion: > > Eben Moglen, Attorney for the Free Software Foundation. > Henri Poole, Board member, Free Software Foundation. > Benj. "Mako" Hill, De

Re: snippets

onvincing case here for removing them. It is not uncommon to be unconvinced when all convincing arguments have been neglected. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: committee for FSF-Debian discussion

issues with cover texts, mass distribution, the DRM clause, and the definition of transparent forms. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: GFDL

;t worry about Red Hat, if I were you. I'd worry about Microsoft. Gosh, they might distribute the Emacs manual without including RMS' political essays. They could use it to document... wait, they'd be distributing Emacs, and making the GPL available to users, and a dozen news organi

Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status

Gabucino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glenn Maynard wrote: >> One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed. >> That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have >> fallen off the site. > There is a significant part to these patent enforceme

Re: Licensing requirements ???

I am in unfamiliar water, and I want to do > what is right. Nevertheless, I do want to understand the rules, and not > pay by extortion, as per other popular licensing models ;> > > -- > Best Regards, > > mds > mds resource > 877.596.8237 > - > Dare to fix things before they break . . . > - > Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much > we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Swiss Ephemeris Public License

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: >> If you do not meet the requirements in the SEPL, for example if >> - you develop and distribute software which is sold for a fee higher than a >> reasonable copy charge >> - or/and you develop and distribu

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

k or an onerous offer valid for three years. The best alternative I can consider is to distribute the book under the GPL, with the special exception that printed copies may be derived from it, or perhaps a separate license to the publisher. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

X, no matter what it is. She cannot use the material in Bob's documentation, though, without importing repugnant or false statements. Bob has succeeded in taking the documentation proprietary. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation >> package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright >> hold

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Alice distribu

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 22:01, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > >> Let's say Alice's installer uses secret-sharing or error-correcting >> codes to meld the program and the documentation, then produce separate >> works

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

odify software, but the GPL doesn't stop me from scribbling on the hard drive of this machine and then handing it to you. What the GPL talks about is a modified copy -- a derivative work. Since the reseller is doing no copying, but merely acting on physi

Re: Packaging Swiss Ephemeris Free Edition for Debian GNU/Linux

rvices and this is going to be addressed in an upcoming GPL v3. I don't > know about the QPL. I am taking the liberty of ccing your message to > debian-legal as the people there are more knowledgeable on such subjects. I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Treindl does no

Re: Advices on choosing a documentation license for an upstream project

knutclient) > Upstream developer Team of NUT > ... > --- > References: > - NUT upstream: http://www.exploits.org/nut/ > - NUT Sid packages: > http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=nut&searchon=names&subword=1&version=unstable&release=all > -

Re: "Invariant name" in hello's debian/rules file

f you are distributing a file in which Jackson retains copyright, you have to include the line "Copyright 1994,1995 by Ian Jackson" anyway. So it requires nothing more than copyright law does. If you are cutting the file down enough that this becomes an inconvenience, there's probably n

Re: GPL flaw?

remove...those twenty lines. The remainder of the > codebase would still be GPLed. That's already the case, because of how combined and joint works are treated under copyright law. -Brian > Thoughts? Perhaps I've misinterpreted the GPL, or missed some portion > of a clause that applies. It would be nice to know that this isn't an > issue. :-) -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Legality of .DEBS in Medialinux.

ity who can give you > more detailed and accurate information regarding the laws and how they > interact with software. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Legality of .DEBS in Medialinux.

Marco Ghirlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>Knoppix should be distributing the source from the same location that >>you would get the CD, so its still compliant with the GPL. >> > Really I couldn't find the sources of Knoppix anywhere. looks like a

Re: Legality of .DEBS in Medialinux.

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Marco Ghirlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > This I don't understand. Seems like I have to create an ISO with only >> > the sources. > >> no. What you can do is add written offer to provide the sourc

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

hnology for use in web browsers, and for the ASF to refuse contributions to the mainline Apache from anyone who doesn't agree. Yes, this means unscrupulous or even just secretive companies can fork Apache and integrate their proprietary, patented technology. That would be unfortunat

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) > >> And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's >> common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a >> standards body with a

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The argument proposed was attempting to say "No company is ever going >> to grant free patent licenses"; I pointed out the argument applies >> equally to software > > And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention > at all, it

Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention >> > at all, it must be because they intend to restr

  1   2   3   >