Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

2003-12-18 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote on 17.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It's impossible to not offend fundamentalists. And let's not forget there are different kinds of fundamentalists. Who agree on very little indeed. > I honestly don't think it's worth the time to try and placate t

Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."

2001-12-28 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Coe) wrote on 19.12.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Here's the relevant chunk of that file (tree-w32/oobr.rc). It's for a > platform we don't build on (win32), and is written in a programming > language I don't recognize (indented two spaces here, but otherwise > unchanged)

Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.

2002-09-07 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Sniffen) wrote on 04.09.02 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are > *good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software. > The question is whether they are free software. Statements like this reall

Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.

2002-09-07 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote on 04.09.02 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The arguments that have been presented that say that requiring file > > renaming is an infringment on the freedoms guaranteed by the DFSG are > > certainly reasonab

Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?

2003-05-27 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 19.05.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > How different are things really on the Continent? Is *everthing* codified? > Perhaps it is; I believe the French (Napoleonic Code) system requires > *every* ruling to be based on a specific article of the code. Ple

Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?

2003-05-27 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 03.05.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Basically, it's a free speech issue. The concept that authors and their > heirs have inherent rights of control over their writings, in eternity > (which is the basic concept of the system) is effectively in opposit

Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem

2003-08-09 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 07.08.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Additionally, the FSF > >is not alone by claiming software isn't the same thing as > >documentation; international agreements and most countries worldwide > >make a disti

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the

1999-12-04 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) wrote on 02.12.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:48:21AM -0500, Caspian wrote: > > I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even > > about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all > > o

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the

1999-12-05 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) wrote on 04.12.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 03:53:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) wrote on 02.12.99 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > >