Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:58:39AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> > In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
>> > cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
>> > strategy.
>>
>> Yes, but a patent co
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
>> >
>> >> And, as it happens, companies do gr
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>&
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> MJ> On 2003-11-15 04:14:44 + Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ> wrote:
> >> It only revokes the patent license, not the whole license.
> >> Since Debian, to a large extent, only c
a list of relevant patents, this might be at least a
*little* more reasonable. But given that, for example, IBM has
contributed to Apache, I cannot sue IBM for patent infringement
without losing my license to use Apache.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[
phole in
> the license.
So an Apache contributor who owns patents on parts of Apache can force
Apache users to either license him their unrelated patents at no cost,
or give up their right to use (his patents in) Apache.
The two paths provided, then, are payment or arbitrary revocation of
th
nice, it isn't good, it isn't right -- but it isn't
Debian's fight, or Apache's, and this isn't the right way to solve it.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Added license@apache.org to this subthread, since my final question is
> directed to them. Please CC debian-legal on replies.
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> This isn't nice, it isn&
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> If the lawsuit filed against you has *no* merit, that's true. But in
>> practice, given the current broken state of the American patent law
>> sy
has patents on critical parts of Apache.
Now I'm screwed: I can't sue Apache for illegally using my work
without my permission, or I'll lose my license to their code.
What this amounts to is a non-Free patent license, since it is
revocable by an unrelated l
debian-legal@lists.debian.org
>
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
>
>>5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against any
>> entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
>> alleging that a Contribution and/or the Work, wit
ares
> enough to do so).
This is, at worst, reducible to the BSD advertising clause. It's not
reducible to a copyright notice in the binary: if I'm giving a talk
about a program I wrote for a professor, I'm obligated by academic
honesty to mention inspira
Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,
> 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,
> Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,
> Kerala, India.
>
> http://in.geocities.com/paivakil
>
> +~+
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
"Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen said on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:15:12AM -0500,:
>
> > enumerated in US legislation -- they are alluded to in some laws, and
> > mentioned in court cases, but intentionally underspecified.
>
>
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
>> cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
>> strategy.
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> > There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
>> > release will s
GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:01:39 -0500,
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
>> straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
>> N
they treat the requirements of the other license as non-free.
Because you're writing mostly about Emacs, I'd suggest sticking
with something GPL compatible, so you can have source code
trivially on the Wiki: that limits you pretty much to the GPL or
MIT/X11 licenses.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
uch a font, while not a violation of copyright, might be an
infringement of the patent.
Second, Congress has been considering design protection legislation for
many years (most recently, the 102nd Congress' H.R. 1790) which, if
passed, woul
GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +,
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> [1 ]
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:52:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>> > At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,
>> > Osamu Aoki wrote:
>> > > > > One of "More-clearly-free alternative scala
Oh well.
It's also incompatible with all other copyleft licenses. Others have
tried to write licenses which said "You can combine this with any free
work" before -- it's very hard, probably impossible to do right.
I think your best bet is to pick a broadly accepted free license -- a
copyleft, if that's what you want -- and put everything under that.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
"Franck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Hi,
>
>We are currently working on a web-developpement tool for a private
> company.
>
>The people who fund the project are okay to give opensource a try, but
> they insist on some restrictions. (for the business model to be
> sucessful).
>
>Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> > This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
>>> > could decide either way.
>>
>>> > The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
>>> > together you are creatin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> The thing is that, in my case, some very good functionality is
> provided by plugins using GPL'd libraries. I want to make sure I can
> distribute those plugins, at least as source. For reasons that should
> be obvious, I'd rather not touch the GPL.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
> which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
> GPL-incompatible).
Write it? Sure. Distribute th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
>>> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
>>> which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
>>> There have been some indications that a source distribution is
>>> allowed, even if a binary distribution is not. Could someone
>>> clarify?
>>
>> I must have missed the message that talked about this. My understanding
>> is that the only case this m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>>> I don't know the details of who writes the SSL support for Konq or how
>>> it's done, nor do I have any machines with Konqueror on them in front
>>> of me righ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>>>>> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
>>>>> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
>>&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>>>>>>> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
>>>>>>> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> I don't know the details of who writes the SSL support for Konq or how
> it's done, nor do I have any machines with Konqueror on them in front
> of me right now, so I can't comment on that.
Ah, found it -- Debian KDE list, l
ry clear on that.
>
> The host was written before the plugin. It thus can't be a derivative
> work of the plugin.
But the combination of the host and the plugin is a derivative of the
plugin -- or is a compilation containing the plugin, or is a mere
aggregation containing the pl
l
point out that further distributors who wish to distribute AIE and
INVERT will essentially be bound by the GPL with regards to AIE, even
though it is under the MIT/X11 license: they received it under the
terms of the GPL, not under the terms of the X11 license.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 01:36:46PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> The KDE folks have, from what I've seen,
>> been quite careful with licensing issues.
>
> That sentence made me snarf. Do people not remember the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
>>> INVERT license.
>>>
&
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
>> mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
>> INVERT and STENOG, and then distribute
t the
definition of "Derived Work" in its own legal code. I think you might
get more insight into the whys and wherefores of the GPL and software
licensing in general if you began by looking for an answer, instead of
guessing at one.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
becomes copyrightable when it is fixed in a tangible form -- so
yes, it is the persistent bits of a computer program, the bits on the
disk, not the algorithm or the stack frames as it runs -- which are
copyrightable. Where's the problem with this, exactly? Please
provide examples.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
involved.
Sure there is -- but it's performed by the person who wrote the
plugin, as he sculpts the interface to fit to the host, and to provide
useful functionality to it -- not merely by itself.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> >> A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
>> >>
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 15:16, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> >
>> > That would seem to fit much better than derivative work, yes.
>> > However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
>> > cons
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have little patience for superstitious beliefs, and less still for
> people who claim to be defending the tender feelings of the ignorant.
But why use names correlated with evil when other options are
available which interfere less with Debian's go
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 15:34, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Right, but since the plugin author clearly intended it to fit with and
>> accompany the host, there's no creativity on the part of the combiner.
>> An
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 14, 2003, at 22:18, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> For someone to later pair it with Emacs has no creativity, so that
>> packager hasn't earned a copyright, but the pairing is under copyright
>
> Yes, but
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this
>> copyright notice:
>>
>> Copyright (C) /author/ (/year/). All Rights Reserved.
>>
>> This document and translations of it may be copi
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
The main trick is to distinguish between the original full text SRFI
("the document") and the free software (document that excerpts or
derives from the document).
Sure, but if you take that tack, the prohibition of modification of
"
Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:28:10PM +0100, Jörgen Hägg wrote:
Somehow the swirl on this page seems familiar... :-)
http://www.elektrostore.com/
(The picture is here: http://www.elektrostore.com/Bilder/electro_loga.gif )
Hell that's not just familiar that's a blatent rip. L
Don Armstrong wrote:
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Brian Sniffen wrote:
Would the following be considered Free by anybody here?
If You institute litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
or a Contribution incorporated within the Work consti
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc files.
Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is
the problem.
I
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:12:13PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
o
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the RFCs, if Debian cannot live with different degree of freedom
> depending on the nature of the software it brings (RFC are not
> programs, and by nature, there is no point in being able to modify
> freely a standard like RFCs)
Nonsense. You know w
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Jan 21, 2004, at 21:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
>> > It is not clear to me that this text talks about APIs at all.
>> > It seems to be about the *internal* structure of a database, which -
>> > in
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's say that the library has two things you can get, the texinfo
> source files and a pdf generated from them. People are unlikely to
> print out the texinfo files, so they would naturally try to print out
> the pdf. So the library sets the "do not pr
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
>> This is very different from EULAs because with them the end user gets
>> *less* rights that normally given by copyright
>
> The rights normally given by copyright are virtually ni
>
> I can not magically transform a text file into object form by running
> "tr a-z A-Z" on it.
Sure you can. It's now full of shouting, and no longer in the
preferred form for modification. No license can reasonably
distinguish between tr and gnupg -- distinguis
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:45:43AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> > I find it hard to believe that anything "produced by mechanical
>> > transformation" from a source is object form. Object form is machine
>
odification. It's not in the license now, but clearly state that
if you incorporate nothing creative from the GPL's work, you are not
a derivative work.
* Add "public performance" to the scope clause in 0, permitting (for
example) me to give a lecture
licensed for $1 million.
Unfortunately, in the age of the DMCA that isn't quite enough. Since
the GPL has few restrictions on functional modification, it's not much
of an issue there. A document license has a broader problem: the
"first person to crack it
ns hit from just spewing your code out
there: this community is fickle, and a poorly done release is a great
way to annoy it.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
es faster
than your competitors can copy them, you gain no competitive
advantage from innovation. Software gets developed only to scratch
personal itches.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:23:26AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> * There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
>> a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
>> tha
I like, or
tape over bits of a video recording. Given a legal unmodified copy on
disk, can't I modify it as I wish under the first-sale doctrine? I
own the drive it's on, after all, and copyright does not in any way
infringe my right to dispose of my physical property.
-Brian
Still not a lawyer.
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:37:54PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> >> * There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
>> >> a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features fa
and
each of these (and each Perl module and Apache module) lives on its
own separate server.
To what are the users of my site entitled? My glue code? The kernels
of each of these servers?
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:46:57PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> As I said: existing mechanisms of licensing Free Software (e.g. GNU
>> GPL and MIT/X11) provide an impetus for improvement. A
>> compulsory-sharing licens
tively
objecting.
That, in itself, makes a good argument for why the author should have
no ability to place an obligation on anybody under a Free Software
license.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
>>> have freedom? As far as I can see the an
grity and privacy of my own
thoughts: if I view the source code of emacs, and compose a similar
editor in my head, I should be able to keep it to myself.
The right to simply keep my mouth shut, or my pen still, is important.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
mare case quite
well, without significantly bothering people who just want to set up a
shell server for some friends.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Torsten Werner wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 2003-04-01 at 11:43:36 AM (-0500), Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > All other uses not mentioned here require a commercial license.
>> > Restrictions on use violate DFSG 5 or 6; this one violates
rn off validation. Now I distribute this
under your draft LPPL.
The freeness of a license should be as divorced as possible from
accidents of implementation.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> >> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Form
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
> how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
> between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
> stuff, we could back up a step? This all real
bsequent effect. In this light, maybe the reason the
> LaTeX people are having such problems crafting a clear simple license
> is that at root they want to ban something based on intent, but (being
> computer programmers) they're trying to implement this by writing mo
equirements on you, but I think there is a free path through this
license: to make totally free changes, disable the verifier, change
the package name to GNU/LaTeX, and I think you're set.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
is a clear, unambiguous, and
obvious communication to users of modLaTeX.
I don't believe such a person exists. And even if they do -- there
are certainly people who've violated the FSF's licenses through
foolishness or poor understanding -- a quick note informing them that
they're doing the wrong thing and suggesting ways to fix it has always
been enough so far.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
ly -- this is how it takes me
straight to the info page referring to particular variables or
functions. It is, after all, a self-documenting editor. But the GFDL
imposes additional requirements over the GPL, so they may not be
distributed linked.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> || On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
> || [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>
> bts> You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
> bts> Why does the GFDL prohibit
tive:
c. The Current Maintainer may have included an offering of technical
support for his work, labelled "Support Information". You must
remove any such offerings, though you may add your own. If there
is other information regarding sup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>> c. The Current Maintainer may have included an offering of technical
>>support for his work, labelled "Support Information". You must
>>remove any such
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:05:48PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> But the issue here is not copying or modifying an existing card, but
>> deriving a reference card from the Emacs manual.
>
> If the documentation was lic
ion in a preferred form for modification, such as
plain text or clean HTML, is acceptable as "Source Code" under the
license. Distribution in a closed, hard to modify format such as
PDF, generated HTML or PostScript, or a Microsoft Word document
should always be treat
iain d broadfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether
>> you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by
>> itself. To use the GPL, thou
Plain text" really doesn't satisfy either of those.
Since this isn't actually license text, but merely accompanying
clarification, it's probably OK to be sloppy and request plain text,
or "must be editable with free software."
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
gt; maybe request a plain text version alongside any other formats? or
>
> "must be editable with free software and must be saved in a Free format?"
Since these are just suggestions from the author, I see no harm in any
of these.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
t it reinforces
> to me why the GFDL needs fixing, and not us.
This says to me "It's hard to change the DFSG, and the DFSG is
respected." Neither of those seems like a good reason for the GFDL to
change. I think your argument could be much stronger if it included a
"b
; and ``with the Invariant Sections being "Stabs Types"
> and "Stabs Sections"''
How can the sample GDB Session possibly be a Secondary Section? Or is
this just a good example of how confusing the Invariant Section rules
can be, even to the FSF?
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
ext of the GPL is reusable (allowing modification
and distribution), as long as you don't include the name GPL, the
Preamble, or the instructions for use. If Debian's going to
eventually remove invariant sections, it's possible that the included
copy of the GPL should have those sect
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:22:27PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> However, the legal text of the GPL is reusable (allowing modification
>> and distribution), as long as you don't include the name GPL, the
>> Preamble, or the instructions fo
>> As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed
>> for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions
>> from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it. It is simply a
>> matter of respect that is due the author.
>
> Respect is due; but it
Jonathan Fine said:
> The proposed new LPPL discriminates between person(s) who
> are the Current Maintainer, and those who are not.
>
> I have suggested that this is against Debian guideline 5 -
> non-discrimination.
>
> Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
> guideline does n
MIT/X11
license, or non-educators from distributing further under the GPL.
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
ere bias towards the copyright
holder involves the discrimination clause. The discrimination clause
is more commonly used to prohibit software which is licensed as, for
example, "MIT/X11, but only if you do no work involving a nuclear
power plant" or "Free for non-commercial use only."
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
d Distribute an essential part of the artistic character of MySQL,
XEmacs, and other works which the authors would rather have
proprietary, but which they can't distribute except under the GPL?
Thanks for taking the time to explain this system to the Common Law
folks here.
-Brian
--
Br
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
>> distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
>> Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
>
> No he can't.
ive work of GNU grep. There is a wide swath of gray down
the middle; this is where we hope people are reasonable, and if not
obey the wishes of the original authors.
-Brian
> [0] Which, btw, has many extensions over POSIX or BSD grep,
> so there is not, AFAIK, an alternative implementat
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
>> should either use the "normally part of your OS" exception, or if
>>
Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is* a
>> barrier, Debian
101 - 200 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
