Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> I'd like to start by thanking Jeremy Hankins for his summary of
> debian-legal's objections to the Open Software License v2.0 in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00118.html
>
> Version 2.1 is upon us. It can be found at
> http://www.opensource.org/lice
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > > I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 01:48:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 05:25:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:46:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> > > I believe the change to section 10 of the licence is sufficient to
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
> whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
> any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get
> contract-like provisions into a license. These provisions
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> No. The GPL terminates only for non-compliance, and places no
> restrictions beyond those imposed by law. That's free. Attempts to
> bargain in a license, to say "I'll give you a license to this stuff,
> but only if you give me a license to stuff you already own" a
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > An elementary point of Free Software is to protect the rights of the
>> > users, not excluding "bad" ones. (Or will GPL3 have a section
>> > termination the licence if you breach any FSF copyright?)
>>
>> forfeits the right to
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*,
>> I see absolutely no reason why you should have any rights to the work,
>> since you are trying to eliminate the rights of others to the work. I
>>
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a
> minority. But that means that those people do have a legitimate
> recourse to the courts to enforce their intellectual capital grants.
> And a license which compels them to surrender that recourse is n
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> For example, imagine a license which said any attempt to sue over
>
> Oops, left part out. This should say something like:
>
> Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright
> license in
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Distribution of binaries without source is intrinsically bad for free
> software. Distributing source with binaries is not appreciably
> difficult or limiting; this requirement is trivially accomplished
> without any real cost.
>
> Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for fr
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting
>> > lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant
>> > costs.
>>
>> It's fairly obvious that a requirement that you
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Now, there's a practical issue: the copyright holder may change, so
> the copyright holder isn't the original licensor--if I buy the copyright
> for the work, the existing licensees aren't going to suddenly get a
> license to *my* patents, as well. (I don't presently agree w
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term "Source Code" means the
>> preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
>> all available documentation describing how to modify the Original
>> Work.
> non-free: "all available documentation" seems to
Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> Hi
> I'm packaging portaudio (ITP #269925), and have been informed by Junichi
> Uekawa that there might be a problem with the license. It's basically a
> BSD license with the following additional clause:
>
> Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Softwar
Michael Poole wrote:
> Loss of patent license means the user cannot use the software. Loss
> of copyright license (at least in the USA) only removes the license of
> a user to modify or copy the software further. I do not see how the
> former is narrower than the latter,
I suppose you could cop
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
> the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works,
projects, and organizations as belonging to/being endorsed by/being p
First, anyone analyzing this license should note that many of the
odder-sounding provisions in this license are related to physical artworks
("Originals") where modification may actually change the original.
It appears that the right to copy, create modified copies, and distribute
copies (modified
Josh Triplett wrote:
>> 7. Sub-licensing
>>
>> Sub-licenses are not authorized by the present license. Any person who
>> wishes to make use of the rights that it confers will be directly bound
>> to the author of the original work.
>
> This is the oddity referred to above. First of all, based o
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 09:00:09PM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>> BTW, what does `another unfortunate example of "license NIH"' refer to?
>
> "not invented here"; people writing their own licenses, or modifying
> them, instead of using existing, well-understood licenses. It
Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
> make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
> everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
> only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information
Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2004, at 23:36, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > The GPL requires that all derived works be entirely available under the
>> > terms of the GPL.
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:35:59AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Yes, but OpenSSL wouldn't be a derived work of the GP
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Choice of law is considered DFSG-free, which binds the license to the
> law of one place.
...provided that place's law isn't known to cause the license to have a
non-free legal interpretation when it would otherwise be interpreted to be
free (of course)...
> That isn't the p
Brian M Hunt wrote:
> Or perhaps more succinctly, whether or not the
> cost of legally enforceable dispute resolution is a suitable restriction
> on DFSG to prevent a license from reflecting "free software".
Yes, insofar as the law is the only thing enforcing the licenses. :-P
--
This space in
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:32:17PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Well, then the question is, is that combined program a derived work of
>> the GPLed program?
>>
>> If it consists of two pieces: the GPLed program and the OpenSSL library
>>
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:55:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
>> > software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit
>> > claiming copyright i
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-21 23:16:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I agree entirely. No software patent is
>> legitimate, and clauses stating that you can't continue to use a piece
>> of Free Software while claiming that software infringes your pate
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Ick. A, B, C, X, VD, MSC, π. I find these hypotheticals to be a lot
> easier to parse and process if I give these people names and use actual
> projects to put things in perspective with one another ...
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:08:04PM -0400, Nathana
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> (Unrequested CC sent; it just seems like a good idea when sending mails
> concerning possible MUA problems ...)
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:16:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> You haven't been reading my postings?
>
> I doubt
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Nathanael, my CC to you bounced, because your ISP is using a bullshit
> spam filter. I'm only forwarding this to make sure that you're aware
> that you're losing legitimate mail because of it.
Yes, I'm in the process of getting a new account.
--
This space intentionally l
Josh Triplett wrote:
> First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free
> license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that
> does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested
> licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free.
>
> Second, I'm not
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Perhaps I'm being thick here, but what legal difference does the
> language make? Doesn't the German Wikipedia use the same licence as
> the English Wikipedia, and aren't they both accessible in Germany?
Hosting location and intended audience, I assume.
Being "acces
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
>>>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
>>
>> Only to the exten
Roger Leigh wrote:
> During discussion with gimp-print upstream about the potential
> problems with the GNU FDL and the possibility of relicensing it, a
> number of issues have cropped up, which I'd be grateful if you could
> assist with. I have pointed to Manoj's draft position statement as a
>
Michael Poole wrote:
> I think we all agree that "If you sue the Original Author for any
> patent violation, you lose rights granted by this license" (e.g. RPSL
> 1.0) is not free, but that's different from either of the above.
Yes, we all agree on that. (Just to make it clear.)
--
This space i
Wesley W. Terpstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What I am concerned about is the following scenario:
>
>Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
>To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
>Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't work at all.
That stateme
Warning: long. CC'ed to debian-legal in case anyone there knows anything more.
The source for the acenic driver is in fact in the source package for
the kernel.
The firmware is absent from Debian for *very* good reasons: the version in
the Linux kernel is distributed without proper copyright not
>Is this helpful
>http://web.archive.org/web/2711071330/sanjose.alteon.com/license-agree.shtml
Yes, it certainly is!
Thank you for finding this. :-)
It's not a free software license, but it looks like it may be a license which
allows distribution in non-free. :-)
>Not really. That licence doesn't allow Debian to distribute whatever
>it is that's being licenced. There's only permission for personal use.
Hmm. My initial reading was that "you" could
(1) "create, test and provide" programs for use with ALTEON network cards
(2) "license the object code" of s
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
>If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
>done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
Absolutely correct; serious bugs should be filed against thos
Warning: IANAL.
>1) The (L)GPL is legally an offer of contract, right?
>
>It was claimed during the debian-devel discussion that the LGPL is
>somehow a unilateral grant of rights under some legal theory other
>than contract, which doesn't make sense to me.
If you agree to the GPL (or LGPL), you
> So can you say why
>it is a problem with my license, and not with Apache's and PHP's?
Nobody is going to say that, because we think it's a problem with all those
licenses.
It was a problem with Apache's license. It was not noticed for a long time.
Eventually it was noticed, and it was *fixed
Consider adding the following to the summary under "trademark restrictions":
Debian-legal has contacted Creative Commons about this issue, since it seems
to be trivial to fix, but has unfortunately received no response.
Perhaps also add the following to the summary:
We would really like to work
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:46:43 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Warning: IANAL.
IANAL either. Just interested (at least in the non-legal sense).
1) The (L)GPL is legally an offer of contract, right?
It was claimed during the debian
to revoke permission to use the Community
trademark license. So I would be inclined to do this
Heh. I'm a fence-sitter.
...
>[1] - http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More nasty points:
Addon packages should not, according to the trademark policy, be called
"thunderbird-enigmail", for instance. "enigmail-for-thunderbird" is fine
though. (Whew.)
>[1] - http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
--Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>OK, let's say I rename the package to 'somebird' and want to produce a good
>package for debian. Should I use a patched orig.tar.gz or is it ok to
>distribute the source as provided by upstream (of course without the
>trademarked icons) and patch the rest (e.g. thunderb
Gerv wrote:
>I should point out that changing the name of Firefox and Thunderbird is
>designed to be easy. Netscape does it with the suite to make Netscape, after
>all. There's a central branding file or two where you change the name once
>and it's picked up almost everywhere.
>
> I'm not sayin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm vaguely aware of a piece of software which contains both GFDL
> licensed material, and possibly code which was dropped in without
> actually checking the licence for compatibility with the GPL.
>
> A gargantuan number of people over the years have contributed code to
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law. The presumption is
>>"All rights reserved unless you have explicit permission".
Josh Triplett wrote:
>Somehow, I doubt you'd say that about a GPL-licensed package with one
>author
>Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Is the AROS license DFSG ok?
>>
>> http://www.aros.org/license.html
Michael Poole wrote:
>Some people believe that this kind of termination clause violates the
>DFSG.
Clause 8.2a terminates rights to the Contributor Version if you allege in a
lawsu
Sorry this is so long and meandering...
I wrote:
> There's a reason I used the analogy of "You may walk on my property,
> provided you walk barefoot". It's different from "You may walk on my
> property, provided you give me five dollars". Despite the formulation,
> it actually amounts to "You ma
>Consider next that this info file does not contain the advertised
>section nor contains the GFDL at all.
>
>Now my question: Is it legal to distribute[2] this?
>
>For reference, the G"F"DL says in section 2:
>|You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
>|commercially or noncomm
ere:
>For what it's worth, the case law I've read (I don't have Nimmer or
>the like handy) points out that a "copyright license" is really just
>an enforceable promise not to pursue an infringement claim under
>certain circumstances.
I guess I'm co
>I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a
>telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our
>suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Right now, I think this
>is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of
>t
I wrote:
>> > In contrast, pre-1986 (I think) US law specified that works published (==
>> > deliberately distributed to the public by their authors) without a
copyright
>> > statement went into the public domain.
Michael Edwards wrote:
>1976; but otherwise basically correct (IANAL)
Checked this
Michael Edwards wrote:
>If one wants to remove ambiguity about the copyright status of small
>contributions to a joint work, one could require either assignment of
>copyright to the primary holder or formal placement into the public
>domain,
One of the very unfortunate side effects of the Berne Co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Because the AGPL has some implementation issues that make it possibly
> incompatible with the DFSG, I've been trying to find an alternative that
> would still protect source-code redistribution on line.
"First, do no harm."
Any such license must, at a minimum, guarante
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The Federal
> Circuit, en banc, characterized one defendant's reliance on a similar
> statistic (offered by their counsel and apparently relied on in good
> faith to the extent that that means anything) as "flagrant disregard
> of presumptively valid patents without an
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I don't know of any caselaw in any European country in the past ten
years that says "This European patent is invalid because it's a
computer program as such."
That's not the caselaw you're looking for.
The caselaw you're looking for is "This European patent is invalid b
Arnaud Engelfriet wrote:
>Here's a claim that would _not_ be maths as such under European law:
>"A method of encrypting a bitstream A using a key B that is the
>same length as A, comprising computing A XOR B".
That *is* math. If a judge has ruled that it isn't, he doesn't know what the
hell he's
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>I agree with you that the distinction may seem artificial. But it
>does seem logical to me to say "you can't patent A XOR B but you can
>patent a computer program that does that."
If you can patent the class of computer programs which do A XOR B,
you have patented the abst
Anthony Towns wrote:
>In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some
>more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all
>gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies.
>Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp.
R
Joerg wrote:
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 that I
do not ag
John Goerzen wrote:
One of the main sticking points with the GFDL is the use of invariant
sections, which may not be removed or altered (save for some very
inconsequential exceptions.) One thing about the invariant sections is that
the GFDL specifically states that they "contain nothing that cou
John Goerzen wrote:
There are some properties of documentation that make it a fundamentally
different beast from the software we deal with. Some are:
1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form.
Nope; this problem exists even with things generally agreed to be
pr
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet quoth:
It's not very popular, but since the US became a party to the
Berne Convention they have to recognize moral rights. And it's
in 17 US Code 106A.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a
Arnoud
Note first that these only apply to a "work of visual ar
Richard Stallman wrote:
>The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made
>the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to
>make sure they could not be removed. Specifically, to make sure that
>distributors of Emacs that also distribute non-free software cou
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting
the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL.
This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being
GPL compatible.
That would imply
>>Lack of forced distribution is not "censorship". Get a clue, or a
>>dictionary.
>
>Heh.
>
>"Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to
>distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from
>the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a
>free
so there's further precedent for the GNU Project distributing non-free
material.)
In contrast, I have major objections to the FSF promoting the creation of
lots and lots of non-free manuals. And further objections to the FSF
claiming while doing so that they are free manuals. These policies *are* a
significant change.
--Nathanael Nerode
>From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html):
>Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now. We intend to
>continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have
>always done.
This seems t
Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
>I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be
>considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall
>not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you
>wrote it, and so on.
>There are limits everywher
Richard Braakman wrote:
>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
^-(here I refer to Richard Stallman's argument)
>> programs as it does to manuals
Jerome Marant said:
>Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
> ^^^
>
>Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you
>any longer.
>
>--
>
Jerome Marant said:
>Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
>distribute something else than software.
>From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English.
("It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing something other than
software" would be correct.)
Perhaps this
Richard Stallman wrote:
>It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place
>here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to
>Invariant Sections.
The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to
cast the FSF's actions in a harsh
I propose something like the following as an addition to the Debian web
pages, at the bottom of http://www.debian.org/intro/free. I offer this
up for revision and use by the Debian community, or anyone else.
Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
project's decision
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
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ has in its
front material the following:
[...]
Permission is granted to copy, distribute an
Andreas Barth wrote:
>I don't think it's good manners to try to push a certain view by
>putting it on the web sites. No, first finish the discussion in d-l,
>and the you _might_ put additions on the web site. (Though I think
>it's even then not the right place for that; but that's a different
>poi
page at
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html.
(Reminder to Debian people: that page is public domain. If you want to
include part or all of it in an more official Debian statement, please,
please do so!)
--Nathanael Nerode
Richard Stallman wrote:
>This is an illuminating comparison, because the practical problems of
>the GFDL (and I won't claim there are none) are basically of the same
>kind (though of a lower magnitude) than those of the 4-clause BSD
^^^
Replace this with "great
Steve Langasek wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg7.html):
>Does this mean that the gcc maintainers don't agree with this list's
>interpretation of the GFDL, or that they don't regard this as a high
>priority between now and the release?
I believe that
Don Armstrong:
> You should be able to find caselaw involving a case where a work was
> improperly placed in the public domain (ie, the person dedicating it
> to the public isn't the copyright holder,) but as the US system is a
> law in action, you'll need to find a case where someone placed the
>
/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Perhaps this is the problem? I'm happy to help clarify the meaning of
English grammar constructions.
--Nathanael Nerode
RMS said: (in re
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00652.html):
All I want to say about the new issue is that a small fractional
increase in size for a large collection of manuals is not a big deal.
That's not enough to make a license non-free.
The GFDL, however,
Perhaps we have hit the key parts of the disagreement, finally. I would
love to get some further clarification from RMS on his views, so I have
asked a few questions below. I have made 4 points in response to this
one paragraph, but the questions are in points 3 and 4.
RMS wrote:
By contras
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. Section 2b requires
>that I distribute my new program, Sniffmacs, "under the terms
RMS wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00776.html):
>Part of the document can be a separate file,
>because a document can be more than one file.
>
>This detail of wording doesn't make a difference that I can see.
Aha. I just found a way to put GFDL manuals
Matthieu Roy wrote:
>Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
>political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
>distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG
>compliant?
There's a difference at the moment between "distributed by Debian" and
icense does not grant a trademark license. If it is
applied to a trademark, you should be sure that you are not violating
trademark rights.
It should be trademarked by SPI as a trademark representing the Debian
Project.
I believe this would solve all problems.
--Nathanael Nerode
Richard Stallman wrote:
Yes. "Debian will remain 100% free software". That's the first line of the
Debian Social Contract. This means that everything in Debian must be free
*software*.
That is one possible interpretation, but since it is based on
asserting that manuals, essays,
Richard Stallman wrote:
Remember the hypothetical "emacs reference card", which must be
accompanied by 12 pages of additional invariant material? Sounds like a
big deal to me.
If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
of additional invariant material.
T
RMS wote:
>For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use "software"
>in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs
>only.
This is not what I believe to be the standard meaning or the historically
correct meaning, but thanks for avoiding confusion.
>The main dif
a few other GNU Project contributors and members who feel the same
way, where should we attempt to be heard so as to have some influence on
the GNU Project as a whole?
--
Nathanael Nerode
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
I would
>suggest you are mistaken.
If I wrote it and kept it secret; and it was distributed without my
authorization; and used to cause harm, I am quite sure I would not
be subject to any liability claims. Or if I would be, then the legal
system is totally off the wall. But we're getting off the topic.
--
Nathanael Nerode
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
h up the above license draft and turn it into the
"Effective Public Domain License"? Then push it at Creative Commons?
:-)
--Nathanael Nerode
which doesn't help, and does not make sense for anything consisting
of multiple 'parallel' files).
Would dumping ELF sections into the executable with the correct titles
and contents perhaps qualify? ;-)
--
Nathanael Nerode
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
three licenses are listed as exceptions to the rules of the DFSG, but
I think that is
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 01:15 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I'd like to nail it as open as humanly possible, so I'd like to apply to
> to anyone receiving a derivative work based on the work as well, unless
> there's a legal complication in that.
Anthony
RMS wrote:
> A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
>text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web
>browsers?
This is absolutely a *critical* point.
Brian Sniffen:
>Thanks for the response -- I hadn't noticed that phrasing before.
>But if I give *you* a copy of Sniffmacs under the Sniffen GPL,
>wouldn't you then be bound only to give others the SGPL, not the GGPL
>with its Preamble?
Now we get into a subtle point of copyright law. This is how
201 - 300 of 777 matches
Mail list logo
