I don't understand...
Why go through all the trouble of writing a WDL? Why not stick with
using normal software licenses (GPL, LGPL, X11, BSD-3clauses,...) for
documentation? Anyway, the presence of invariant/opiniated/whatever
non-free parts in the body of the *licensed-work* will hardly ever
This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
meet the DFSG test?
DFSG 8 says: License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
Yet the logo's license says:
Debian Official Use Logo License
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
1. This logo may only be used if:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
meet the DFSG test?
No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
Debian distribution.
True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
to refer to the p
Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Since Debian use the translation "Logiciel" for Debian French pages,
> it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian.
Mathieu,
I would suggest that you to carefully read "Le petit Robert"'s
definition for "logiciel". (For those of you that are not Frenc
Mathieu Roy wrote:
LOGICIEL: n.m. Ensemble de travaux de logique, d'analyse, de
programmation, nécessaires au fonctionnement d'un ensemble de
traitement de l'information (opposé à matériel) .
(Emphasis mine).
A translation of the emphasized text is: (opposite to hardware).
Apparently you fo
Hi Debian-legal, Egon and Dalibor,
The opinion of debian-legal would be highly appreciated by all involved in this
long running thread of discussion about the implications of:
1- Kaffe being licensed under the GNU GPL.
2- Kaffe's class library being licensed under the GNU GPL.
3- Differeing inte
Dalibor Topic wrote:
It would have been nice if you had made the arguments of each side
clear, before attacking my position. The discussion has not taken place
on debian-legal, but on debian-java. I appreciate the way Gadek
presented both sides of the previuos argument.
You have a good point,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Kaffe is essentially a filter that takes java
bytecode as input and emits program code on the fly (this is
technically incomplete, but effectively equivalent for the sake of
this argument). The input to a filter cannot be a derivative work of
it; we don't *care* about the s
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
I can live with this view (even though an argument could be made about
the fact that many VMs (I do not know specifically about Kaffe) internally
use bytecodes from the class library to handle internal data structures
[think of a just-in-time compiler written in
Hi All.
I am not subscribed to this mailing-list, so please CC answers to me (if
any).
In this message, I will highlight some facts. Note that I will discuss
the interpretation of the licenses of Classpath, Kaffe, and Eclipse in a
separate message.
Fact 1
==
Regarding the Kaffe FAQ at:
h
Hi All,
I am not subscribed to this mailing-list, so please CC answers to me (if
any).
In this long message I will outline my interpretation of copyright law
and the GNU GPL. I will actually cite the relevant parts (for computer
Software) of the Canadian Copyright Act, which are surprisingly s
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
So, according to such reasoning, you own opinion is irrelevant to the
huge parts of
Dalibor Topic wrote:
So, in other words, you CANNOT interpret the text of this FAQ as an
exception to the GPL. This FAQ is in now way legally binding, and it
has not even been written by its copyright holder(s) [or, more
precisely, agreed upon by all of them].
None of the the things you are tr
Dear Michael,
First, this will be my last message on this thread. I have expressed, I
think, a quite clear opinion. You may debate its merit or even discard
it if you wish. My goal was not to dictate the conduct of any body, but
to clarify the understanding of the GPL I got during a long priv
[OK. One "past-last" message, as Dalibor does deserve an answer to his
nice message.]
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Can you interpret shell scripts without GNU Bash? Can you interpret
makefiles without GNU Make?
As far as I can tell, from reading the law and the GPL, the bash script
is simply data to
15 matches
Mail list logo
