Michael Poole wrote:
> See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
> that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
> of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
> mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copyrightable) transfor
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Lex Spoon wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
>>> the licensor, the license can't be free.
> [...]
>> More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose
>> it sa
> On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat
>> Test"
>> or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
>> holder
>> does not get to make up his or her own laws?
The Ideocrat Test? Or per
Josh Triplett wrote:
As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an
issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to
debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want
single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational
discussion.
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into the ocaml
3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
I would only offer one small piece of feedback, and that is that the
license for "The Compiler" is described as the QPL version 1.0, whil
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Brian M Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I was contemplating the conundrum of open source digital rights management,
and would like some feedback. If someone were to write digital rights
software, eg. for downloading from iTunes, could they license it under a free
s
Sven Luther said:
>
> No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which
> is
> why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception.
>
> The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified though by Trolltech, so
> it
> is less problematic.
Ok, one "apt-get insta
I hope this sort of success is mentioned in the debian-legal summary of
threads for this week.
It's exactly the sort of thing that needs to be highlighted. It
demonstrates how debian-legal works with upstream to find ways to make
their software DFSG-Free.
It's also nice to see that Sleepyca
Sven Luther wrote:
But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of
your QPLed work, you have the same right as he has, don't you ?
To distribute the modified (combined) version of your QPL'd work under a
proprietaty license?
In other words, if I submit a patch to
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself
in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and
powerfull have the right to get their licence re
My suggestions are inline. To me, this looks like it is intended as a
free license. It may not pass the "tentacles of evil" test since it is
not precisely worded, but a statement by the copyright holder that the
free interpretation applies is sufficent to cover this issue.
On Wed, Aug 18, 20
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Consider the Malicious Software Corporation (MSC). Consider work X by
author Joe. MSC holds patent A covering X and patent B covering something
else. Valiant Defender (VD) holds patent C covering X.
Normally, MSC can sue any user of X for infringing patent A. With the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving
the program in C. The Pascal code may be useful for reference, but
it i
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred
>> form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need
>> to distribute both to comply with the GPL.
>
> N
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
>> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is
>> that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
>> s
Joerg Wendland said:
> The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
> invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
> conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
> not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it th
Richard Braakman said:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well
>> to programs as it does to manuals!
>>
>> Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
>> allowed 'off-topic
Fedor Zuev said:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> It almost certainly affect the normal use of program and
>>> will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence
>>> of such code.
>
>>How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangma
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> 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,
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> Indeed, I started with "documentation" and switched to "text" as more
> general; it's hard to keep the sentence structure so close using the
> word "work." "Content" sounds good, so far.
Only trouble I have with "Content" is that is sounds like the document
formatting doe
IANAL, TINLA. Consult with a professional familiar with your situation.
Scott James Remnant said:
> 4. Request the patch from the revision containing the licence change to
> the HEAD.
>
> a. This patch should not include any licence changes.
This patch is derived from the work under the new l
David B Harris said:
> On 28 Aug 2003 03:22:47 +0100
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -(which makes passes at compilers) written
>> +(which makes passes at compilers) written
>
> I agree that this is an ambiguous case; one side would want to convince
> the judge that the user was
Branden Robinson said:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
>> This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
>> Debian Manual at
>> All well and good, so far. Appendix H of the Manual, in
>>
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ap-c
Mathieu Roy said:
> The same goes from the Ancient tragedies. But it's already perfectly
> possible to make a remake of any book, story or movie.
The ancient tragedies are not protected by copyright.
Try making a "remake" of the Harry Potter books, and see how long it takes
to be sued. Try writi
Steve Langasek said:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> Including the GPL and the DFSG?
>> Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
>
> "Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please
> give credit to the Debian project if you do."
> http://www.
Branden Robinson said:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 02:57:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Is it enough to write on the CD pocket or something such instruction
>> on getting the sources from any debian mirror, or something such, and
>> say that the modified sources are on CD #2 or something such.
>
>
Barak Pearlmutter said:
> I see a few practical problems with the GFDL:
>
> - incompatibility with the GPL
To expand on this a bit, this means that documents that are derived from
GPLd source (by extracting info from comments, or analysing the code itself)
are inconsistantly licensed. The part of
Rick Moen said:
> Under common law (and extensions such as the Uniform Commercial Code),
> the required contract element of acceptance entails _communication_ of
> that acceptance to the offeror. Obviously, C's acceptance per that
> framework is legally problematic.
>
> (Informally, one speaks of
Anthony DeRobertis said:
> The GPL prohibits us from distributing Debian on orange peels or
> probably even punch cards, because that's not "on a medium customarily
> used for software interchange."
The medium restriction you note refers only to the source code. We can
distribute Debian on orange
Mathieu Roy said:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> There is also the definition of transparent forms. I can't distribute
>> GFDL'd documents I write in Openoffice or LyX.
>
> The fact that you cannot write GFDLed document with OpenOffice or LyX
> (which are not at all in a preferr
Richard Stallman said:
> this problem doesn't really depend on invariant sections at all. The
> same would be true for a GPL-covered manual, because you can't use
> snippets without a copy of the GPL (unless they are fair use).
But there is a difference between the GPL-required text:
> Portio
Mathieu Roy said:
> You last phrase is just like if you were saying: the GPL force me to
> distribute the source code, it is a restriction on how I can use and
> transform the source code, rendering the GPL non-free.
Unless I am mistaken, you can take GPLd code, compile it with a non-free
compiler
Richard Stallman said:
>But there is a difference between the GPL-required text:
>...
>
>And the GFDL-required text:
>
> They are different, but neither of them is really short, so I think the
> practical consequences are more or less the same.
To use one page of the GPL-licensed work
Peter S Galbraith said:
> As I read it, you can have the text of the FDGL
> as a separate file in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, it has to be
> included in the derived work itself.
I'm assuming you left out the 't from "can" above, and you are saying that
you can't just refer to /usr/share/doc/
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
> the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy
> GFDL'd manuals and then do this.
Why? because you're inhibiting the later recipient's ability to read them?
Hmm.. within the te
Branden Robinson said:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:19:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I'd appreciate a re-analysis of the following. As an interested party
> I will sit it out if I can, and act upon the consensus of the
> participants in the discussion.
Here's my analysis. IANADD, IANAL.
Mathieu Roy said:
> But what happens when the manifesto is included in a GFDLed manual,
> which clearly allows translation, as long as the original text is
> provided?
You have an example of a dual-licensed work.
You can distribute the manifesto under the "No modification" license, or at
your opt
>From section 1 of the GFDL:
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work
containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied
verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into
another language.
Would emacs20_20.7-13.1_i386.deb fit the definition of "Modified V
Peter S Galbraith said:
> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From section 1 of the GFDL:
>> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work
>> containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied
>> verbatim, or with modificat
Joe Moore said:
> Would emacs20_20.7-13.1_i386.deb fit the definition of "Modified
> Version" above? It is clearly a copyrightable work, and it contains
> the Document (usr/share/emacs/20.7/etc/GNU for example) copied
> verbatim.
Sorry, the correct example is the GNU Emacs
here.
The only thing that's required is the notice that it may be distributed, not
any identification of who the copyright holder is.
Under the Berne convention, copyright applies whether there is a proper
"copyright notice" (i.e. "Copyright &copr; 2003 Joe Moore. All Righ
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> The GNU GPL is somewhat awkward for print distribution: it requires
> either a CD of source in the back 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 copie
Anthony DeRobertis said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:47, Joe Moore wrote:
>
>> Many technical books come with a CD of examples from the book, or
>> similar material. A copy of the source could easily be distributed on
>> that CD.*
>>
>> * The book could not l
MJ Ray said:
> 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
>> holder, she distributes them together. Nobody else can redistribut
Andrew Suffield said:
> Finally, it is totally unacceptable to tie this into a software
> copyright license, such that accepting the license affects the status
> of your own patents. That's non-free however you look at it.
This made me think of an analogy:
Here's a bit from a hypothetical softwar
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Jennifer Machovec, who's drafting the license, posted a new
>> version to license@apache.org on November 13. You can read it at
>>
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=24>
> Thanks. I think the new S5 l
Steve Langasek said:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:48:12PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=24>>> > Thanks. I
think the new S5 looks like this:
>
>> > 5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against an
Anthony DeRobertis said:
> The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
> copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
> what they'd do then.
I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that "The Work"
described in sections 1 and 2 is the object
Arnoud Engelfriet said:
> 35 US Code 271, section (c).
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html
>
> Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or
> imports into the United States a component of a patented
> machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material
> or a
Wesley W. Terpstra said:
> So, what does that mean for a package where the copyright holder
> distributes the package with an extra clause and GPL? Can I
> redistribute it at all?
>
> PS. Please CC me on replies as I am not subscribed.
IANAL, IANADD, IJRD-L.
The last time this conversation came u
Henning Makholm said:
> D. When you volunteer to summarize, select a random 6-digit integer
>as a "priority" and write it in your email. If several people
>volunteer without seeing each other volunteering, the one with the
>highest number wins the responsibility. (This will break the ti
Branden Robinson wrote:
> As I said in my mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz
> >Technologies
> > shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
> > the sale, use or other dealings in this Softwa
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> What do you think of the wording I suggested replacing #6 with?
> Reproduced:
>
>
> 6. No Discrimination Against Types of Use
>
> The license must not restrict anyone from using the work for any
> purpose. For example, it may not restrict the work from being used in
>
Raul Miller Wrote
> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
>
> How so?
>
> [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
> (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
So
Raul Miller wrote
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:37:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> This is allowed by the GPL and required to be allowed by the DFSG, of
>> course, as long as the resulting gcc binary can be distributed under
>> the terms of the GPL. The GPL doesn't care what kinds of changes yo
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:05:47PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> (Note: The license blurb is actually required to be maintained by
>> copyright law, not by the license itself.)
>
> The license itself also explicitly states this as a requirement.
Would you like to cite where in
Raul Miller wrote:
(Deep attributions snipped in previous messages)
>> >>You can combine gcc and metafont and make a new compiler; you can
>> >>even make a script that combines them, apply some patch to the
>> >>combination, and compiles the result to get to your invention; what
>> >>you can't do i
Raul Miller wrote:
>> >> I said: You can modify gcc, combining it with metafont (as long as
>> >> you
>> >> don't eliminate 2,c announcements -- which AFAIR gcc does not
>> >> have);
>> >
>> > If you can put appropriate copyright notices on it, sure. I'm not
>> > sure how you're going to so this
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
>> in the output from --version, etc.
>
> Has metafont been put under the GPL? I hadn't realized that. In that
>
I receive software with a license, I have no reason to
>> >act as if there were some other licensing terms which I haven't been
>> >told about.
>> >
>> >[If that doesn't make sense to you, re-read what you wrote.]
>
>> This did not make sense to me.
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:18:04AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> In exactly the same place(s) that it is in gcc. In the source files,
in the output from --version, etc.
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Has metafont been put under the GPL? I
Steve Langasek Wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:50:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> If someone aggregates my MITed work into a GPLed whole, and then
>> someone else takes my MITed work back out, my work *remains under the
>> MIT license*. *It is not licensed under the GNU GPL*. This is N
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> worte:
> Branden suggested this in [EMAIL PROTECTED], I
> think: what if a piece of code was under these types of terms, and when
> removed, instead of reverting to less restrictive terms than the GPL
> (as programs normally do), reverted to a proprietary license?
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can license it under the GPL, but if anyone successfully
> demonstrates that it is all MIT-derived, there will be an interesting
> argument as to whether or not your removal of chunks constitutes enough
> work to grant you copyright (remember, performi
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I can create derivative works from Homer's _Illiad_ even though the
>> copy I'm basing it on is in the Norton Anthology of Literature.
>
> Most ancient documents
Martin Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> On 2002-07-17 00:44:21 -0400, Simon Law wrote:
>> I can imagine latex.ltx containing a couple extra
>> \openin15=.ssh/identity , \openin15=.gnupg/secring.gpg and
>> \openout15=.shrc commands[2] as put there by someone who has cracked
>> an
>
> This
Jeff Licquia wrote
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
>> > From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
>> >
>> > It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a
>> > distinction between running the program from /usr/local/bin or
>> > /a
Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> well they do to some extend but not really. The simplest solution for a
> distributor would be (beside informing the authors of articl.cls)
> simply not to distribute article.cls but only
> article-with-recurity-problem-removed.cls (no i'm not really suggesting
> thisas a
> As the GPL says:
>
> (2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
> merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
> some other third party--at cost alone.
How long is this offer valid? The GPL says "at least three years".
A non-profit third party
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I'm not a DD. For those interested in my opinion anyway: What if I
> want to modify Latex to remove the filename mapping? If the
> DFSG-freeness is dependent on that mechanism, then I can't remove it
> (for the best or worst of technical reasons) and have it remain
> DFSG-
Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:06:29AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> What's wrong with the conditional statement (unproven assertion:)
>> "The LPPL-1.3 is DFSG-free, but only when applied to software which
>> makes
>> the file-renamin
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:09:38PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>> It's not so hard to imagine a similar situation outside of TeX-world.
>> To quote a recently seen example:
>>
>> nautilus -> libgnomevfs0
>>
>> If you rebuild libgnomevfs0 and link it to OpenSSL, then you cha
>> Plus, I've yet to hear a good argument for why the \NeedsTeXFormat
>> thing isn't DFSG-free.
>
> I think it's a matter of which direction it's coming from. There are
> several variants which are free, and several which aren't. For
> example:
I interpret the \NeedsTeXFormat requirement as:
[p
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:08:52 -0600 (MDT), "Joe Moore"
>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>>> But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
>>> happens when I l
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A hypothetical question. LaTeX has a facility of patching at compile
>> time -- the loading of system-wide or user-wide .cfg files. Would you
>> consider LaTeX license DFSG-free if it would explicitly mention this
>> patchi
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> Even then (if you could) - the user using such FireBird would be
> violating GPL, as he would effectively link GPL-incompatible program to
> GPLed library (he won't be able and/or will not want to use empty, stub
> lib).
Is this really the case? IANAL, but I was under
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Yes, it does (literally) Now that I think about it, it meets one of
>> the LaTeX project's goals (use of non-standard LaTeX requires a
>> conscious decision), but not Th
[sent only to debian-legal. Comments are program-independant]
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program.
> But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird
> that uses libreadline.
On further research, http://www.gnu.org/lic
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a
>> > program.
>> > But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> >> > Users do not violate the GPL: the
Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:01:31PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> So the user, exercising his right to modify FireBird, makes the 1-line
>> change (replace -leditline with -lreadline) to use GNU Readline. He
>> never distributes his modified FireBird++, b
Joe Drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote:
["them" here refers to a GPL library linked to a GPL-incompatible work. The
link is performed by the end user, and the combined work is not distributed]
>> Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (Acc
Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 08:00:43AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Section 1 of the GPL grants permission to "copy and distribute
>> verbatim copies".
>> Section 2 grants permission to "modify [...], and copy, and
>> distribute&
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(quoting the relevant law)
> There is a definitions section, in which we find:
>
> -
> "cryptography product" means any product that makes use of
> cryptographic techniques and is used by a sender or recipient of data
> messages for the purposes of ensur
Sean Shaleh Perry said:
> Remember, you can create a derived work from a GPL program and give it
> to every person in your company they are the ONLY people who have the
> right to ask for source code. The GPL only gives rights people who
> have possession of a binary.
GPL 3.b) states:
>>>Accom
Derek Gladding said:
> Hypothetical question...
Hypothetical answer below...
> If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell, then:
>
> - piped the whole of Usenet through it for a couple of weeks
> - automatically removed all sequences of characters that failed
> - removed all duplicate words fr
Anton Zinoviev said:
> Hi!
>
> This is the license of the URW fonts:
>
> % Copyright (URW)++,Copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development %
> (URW)++,Copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development
> % See the file COPYING (GNU General Public License) for license
> conditions. % As a special excep
John Goerzen said:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > If a court looks at this, and sees "object code", can we really know
>> in advance if they would use the normal definition or this "liberal"
>> one? I suspect they would use the normal one, which is another
Branden Robinson said:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:52:20PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> What sort of transformations are permitted?
>
> I'd say any form of lossless encoding that doesn't require a key to
> recover, or with which the key is provided.
>
> Th
Nick Phillips said:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:06:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> If it's lossy, it can't be transformation; instead it is modfication.
>
> Basically the forms can be judged according to their purpose. The source
> form is the preferred form for making modifications. The ob
Barak Pearlmutter said:
> Here is a rough outline of which I think it could look like:
> Q: How do you do this?
Perhaps:
Q: How do you determine if a license is DFSG-Free?
(There isn't much context to figure out what "this" is)
>
> A: the process involves human judgment. The DFSG is an attempt
Steve Langasek said:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> I think the key there is _useful_ source. Obfuscated forms that can
>> not be turned back into useful source should not be allowed. Encypted
>> forms (if the recipient doesn't have
Branden Robinson said:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Nick Phillips said:
>> > I don't think that losslessness is the right criterion, rather
>> something connected to the meaning of the source and the
>> achievability of the sou
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
>> Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of
>> information, same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into
>> the functionality of the code itself. If one of your customers is a
>> competitor, or a competitor buys ou
Barak Pearlmutter said:
> http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Perhaps a bit of clarification on the desert island test:
Are there really two desert island tests?
1) Person is stranded with a laptop* and a Software CD set (source and
binaries) Can she make modifications/improvements to
Anthony Towns said:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:58:54PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
>> > "The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on
>> a machine where a few other people could log in and access them in
>> itself constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold
>
Jeremy Hankins said:
> Imagine a world with omnipresent connectivity, and a lot of copylefted
> software. Someone decides that they could make the browser into a
> platform (remember Netscape & the MS antitrust trial). So they take
> commonly available Free software packages and stick them behind
Jeremy Hankins said:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Jeremy Hankins said:
>
>>> Take this to the logical extreme where everybody starts doing this
>>> and every Free program has several ASP versions, and you have the ASP
>>> n
Mark Rafn said:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> So the requirement here is that if the RPC service is part
>> of the source code, you MUST ship the server, or not ship anything at
>> all.
>
> Huh? I'm missing that paragraph in my copy of GPLv2. You can't ship
> the server and the
Steve Langasek said:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> The argument is that "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" is a GPL'd program, and this
>> java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.
>
>> Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking t
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
