=== 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, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is n
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
> know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man.
While the core of Emacs was written by RMS, the vast number of add-ons
were not. I doubt that they are _all_ in agreement with the F
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
>
> > You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
>
> I do.
>
> > I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
>
> The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free
> software world, sure.
>
> But I
Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Branden Robinson schrieb/wrote:
> > Yes, though it should be kept in mind that the GPL-incompatibility
> > problem remains. We *still* won't be able to drop hunks of these
> > manuals into their corresponding programs as on-line documentation,
> > unless
so force us to declare it
non-DFSG-compliant. We can't make an exemption because the license comes
from the FSF.
--
Peter S. Galbraith, Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://people.debian.org/~psg
GPG key 1024/D2A913A1 - 97CE 866F F579 96EE 6E68 8170 35FF 799E
It's very unlikely that Debian will lower standards.
Thanks for your time,
--
Peter S. Galbraith, Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://people.debian.org/~psg
GPG key 1024/D2A913A1 - 97CE 866F F579 96EE 6E68 8170 35FF 799E
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What, specifically are you requesting?
> >
> > A) That I stop CCing or otherwise mailing RMS with queries or commentary
> >on this subject until your efforts have reached a conclusion, or are
> >aband
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another one would be from GNU maintainers to release two versions of
> their manuals:
> - the complete GFDLed one
> - a GPLed one where the invariant section are removed
If such a version exists.
> But I see many reasons against this solu
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The term "heavily affected" is still an exaggeration. In any case,
> > the effect is simply due to incompatibility. I posted a long message
> > explaining that this sort of thing is a consequence of the existence
> > of incompatible
Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith schrieb/wrote:
> > Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Sorry, but that's plain wrong. For a GPL program including an online
> >> help viewer or calling an external help viewer, the o
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that the following article explains well why not everybody
> agree that texts and softwares require the exact same freedom:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
I quoted from that in a message CC'ed to RMS yesterday, if you recall.
Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith schrieb/wrote:
> > Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It can be a seperate XML (or whatever) file that's only read by the
> >> software.
>
> > But that's not what h
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I can't promise I'll remember on every message.
> >
> > What he's asking for is the list policy default. You know this. If you
> > won't fix your mailer, you'll continue to get complaints. :)
>
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Maybe GNU should consider the option to provide its manuals
> in two versions, one without philosophical/political/historical
> texts, one as the current manuals.
>
> I considered this possibility in the 1980s, not as a
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> > I have not yet got the impression that the
> >people you name are "free beer zealots". Rather, they seem to be
> >"freedom zealots" if anything. Do you have any evidence to support
> >your des
Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 les
27;d, marked as attachment instead of inline and in a
> charset that I don't use. I didn't detach it yet. I have no idea why you
> made it so difficult for people to read it. Misbehaving email client?
I didn't notice. I guess MH-E does a good job displaying stuff. Cool.
:-)
--
Peter S. Galbraith, MH-E developer
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a separate file in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, it has to be
> included in the derived work itself.
>
> I'm not sure whether your talking about the files as installed
> in a machine, or a distributable package.
>
> If you mean the distr
Brian C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject
> > GFDL-covered manuals. The argument for that is that there are many
> > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> > be interpreted to accep
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
> like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
> same page with regards to the sections problems.]
>
> I've decided not to do that. The develop
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
>
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
> > >
> > > But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> > >
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> > > modified. These are not programs; are they software?
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (It is trivial to fix this, if you are not obsessed with unremovable
> "Invariant Sections" to the exclusion of all other goals. Add a clause
> to the GFDL allowing GPL-conversion, exactly like the clause in the
> LGPL.
>
> This is
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words: I can live with Donald Knuth issuing a license in the
> gray areay between free and non-free. I cannot live with the same thing
> coming from the FSF.
>
> The GFDL is free according to our standards. If you wish
> to view
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the
> DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation.
As someone asked in another thread:
Did you really pass P&P ?
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > On Monday 22 September 2003 12:36, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
> > > software.
> >
> > Who cares about the licence of your girlfriend photographs ?
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, I think that the question is not really what the DFSG
> allows. Because it's pretty clear that the DSFG does not allow GFDLed
> documentation with Invariant section.
>
> The question is: do we think that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in
> some GFDLe
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
> > this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
> > nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
> > theoretical.
>
> No, it's still a t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL
> with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our
> distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear
> fruit without a concrete proposal spell
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GFDL is doing its job by guarding against this. Debian may label
> our manuals as "non-free", an appelation I disagree with and will
> criticize, but at least it cannot remove them.
Sure it can. It can move them to non-free. (Or perhaps you mea
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have, therefore, updated my FDL webpage:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/fdl/
Many many many thanks for doing this!
Peter
Zedor Fuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
> can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important
> cases, this list software is not be counted copyrightable. Please for
> the document by European copyright regim
Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I became aware of the concepts of free software, Debian, the FSF and
> the real meaning of 'free as in freedom' on doing some follow up
> reading after coming across other files in this very same directory
> (while using another distro). According to the
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 15:22, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Interesting. Do you think this may be an intended consequence?
>
> I have no reason to believe so. Hopefully in a day or two, RMS will
> clarify (to me at least).
>
> > It would certainly se
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 modifications and/or translated into
> another language.
>
> Would emacs20_2
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are the advantages of keeping them?
>
> - The time and effort that would be spent on locating and removing them
> and maintaining a repackaged source archive can instead be spent on
> writing code and fixing bugs.
> - We maintain better relations
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
>
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
> > > might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
>
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
> >>
> >> - Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
> >> any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
>
> >Mathieu, you're lying. Provide citations of any Debi
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have trouble with the OpenSCO sourcecode, because I have programmed
> in 1988-1991 and uploaded some progs ans sourcecodes to a BBS in München.
>
> The Binary and Sourcecode (for DOS) was in the Public Domain and for
> educational only, not for c
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> please keep the Cc: on any replies.
> > When originally written, it was intented that the DFSG apply to the
> > entire content of main.[1] We have (to my knowledge) consistently
> > interpreted it this way.
>
> For documentation I can still understand
Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 co
> Please advise. I am not subscribed, so Cc.
>
> Is this licence (from ilisp 5.10.1) DFSG free?
>
>
> COPYING -- TERMS AND LICENSING AGREEMENT FOR ILISP
> -
[cut]
> ILISP if freely redistributable. Eventually it may
I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
Joey Hess wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > > This is not some random quo
It was more than a day, during which you posted to -devel.
Paul Serice wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
> > licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
> > nothing back
I should have read all the list before replying...
Paul Serice wrote:
> Paul Serice wrote:
> >
> > You don't give me much time to reply.
>
> I take that back. It just got lost in incoming.
"Alan W. Irwin" wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > KDE, in source form or not, cannot be an official part of Debian until
> > its license problems are resolved. Source is great, but you have to be
> > ale to leagally build it, link it against the required libraires, use it,
> >
Joey Hess wrote:
> http://www.491.org/projets/api/
>
> Shocking.
Also see their license link at the bottom!
http://www.491.org/projets/api/license.html
: License
:
: Copyright © 1997-1998 Application Programming Interface (API_France)
: 06 rue des Petits Hôtels
: 75010 Paris
Andrew Weiss wrote:
> So can we forward Debian's license page to them and demand removal?
At least the respect of the license (probably refer back to the
original and use the same license; they can't really decide to
copy our stuff and change the license in it!)
> What exactly can be done about
> And doesn't their use of the Debian logo break the license?
I'd say yes. The logo license says:
: Debian Open Use Logo License
:
: Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
:
: This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to
: the Debian project, but does not indi
Bruce J. Perens wrote:
>---> Quote from http://www.libranet.com/download.html <---
> If, after installing Libranet, you decide to keep it, then you
> must become a member. [ ... ] You become a part of the rapidly
> growing Libranet community. The cost of membership is only
> us$10.00.
Worse tha
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> I found that > 60 packages in Debian have .gifs included.
>
> I will probably fill wishlist bugs against them all unless
> someone oppose this.
>
> Is it legal at all to distribute GPL'ed .gifs at all ?
It's my understanding that the lzw compression usually used in
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> I am considering to package for Debian a library whose licensing conditions
> are the following:
>
> This software is free for non-commercial use.
Implying it isn't for commercial use. It's not DFSG compliant.
>
This was on the kde-licensing mailing list two days ago.
Just FYI.
Peter
--- Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 20:33:29 -0500
From: mosfet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: QT Designer _NOT_ under QPL.
Kevin Forge wrote:
>
> There is an
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Troll Tech clearly does have the ability to grant implicit permission for
> their code and anyone on this list should concede that this software has
> no legal problems.
Huh? Here you say it doesn't have problems...
> Will it make it into Debian? No
Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:09:57PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > Troll Tech clearly does have the ability to grant implicit permission for
> > > their code and anyone on this list should concede that this software has
> > > no legal
Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:18:45AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > The way I'm reading what you wrote is like so:
> >
> > - Troll Tech releasing GPLed code that links to Qt is legal
> > (because implicit permission is granted).
>
Colin Watson wrote:
> >RMS asked about other free-software IMAP servers. Cyrus isn't one, but
> >acording to one of their lawyers... their intents match the GNU GPL
>
> I don't see how. The GPL seeks to restrict proprietary use to keep the
> software free, while, according to the lawyer you
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Peter S Galbraith
> > Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > > >acording to one of their lawyers... their intents match the GNU GPL
>
> > > the Cyrus licence seeks to restrict commercial use to let them make more
> > >
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Peter S Galbraith
> > Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Scripsit Peter S Galbraith
> > > > Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > > > > the Cyrus licence seeks to restrict commercial use to let them make m
> ore
>
Drew Parsons wrote:
> - viewmol (ftp://ccl.osc.edu/pub/chemistry/software/SOURCES/C/viewmol/)
>
> viewmol supplies source which compiles (and also an rpm, which
> segfaulted under potato). The copyright statement inside their
> documentation indicates that "Permission to use, copy, and
> distrib
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified
> > version, but that people who recieve it from us do not, unless they
> > too ask permission ("We do expect and appreciate..."). Non-free
Paul Serice wrote:
> It's easy for GPL supporters to say that software patents are one of
> the biggest threats to free software in the middle of the exclusionary
> period. It's like all the reports in the middle of summer complaining
> about global warming. I have never heard and probably neve
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" wrote:
> > The question is, does the below meet the DFSG? Particularly since it
> > is:
> > 2. Requires you to give them the source (although it does say
> > "please" at the site listed, so "requires" may be a bit harsh).
>
> This is ok, it essentially states what the GPL
http://www.debian.org/intro/free says:
: Authors of free software on the other hand are generally looking
: for some combination of the following:
:
: - Not allowing use of their code in commercial software. Since
:they are releasing the code for others to use without any
:profit to t
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > So they want to disallow commercial use or circulation of derived
> > works. Our `What is free software' web page appears to say
> > that's okay, but this license fails the DS
Jeffry Smith wrote:
> Check DFSG "Fields of Endeavor" clause. Basically, no, there isn't a DFSG
> compatible license that prohibits commercial derived works, because DFSG
> specifically prevents this. Remember, commercial does NOT equal
> proprietary.
I know. But http://www.debian.org/intr
Thank you all for your patience with my poor choice of words...
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Peter S Galbraith
>
> > Okay, let me rephrase. Commercial use of the software is allowed
> > by scilab, but they want to limit the ability of making derived
> > comme
of this
> licence.
[Oups. Forgot to send to the list.]
It falls short on a few points. Here's what I emailed them last
week, but I haven't heard back from them.
Peter
-cut-
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Making Scilab free (
Just had a reply from a Scilab author, and this is what I replied
back. He gave me permission to post it here.
Peter
--- Forwarded Message
From: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Making Scilab free (as in speech) software
In-reply-to: (Your m
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > We could get the cited "prior written permission", but if that
> > permission applies only to Debian then I think we run into DFSG
> > clause 8, "License must not be specific to Debian".
>
> I don't think so. I think D
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I know for books, the copyright on the collection as a whole (including
> > cover art, etc) is separate from the copyright on the individual stories.
> > I assume this is similar.
>
> This is true, and related to the case. But the copyright on t
If I use a nautical chart and digitise the coastline to some
degree of precision, can I then slap my own (free) license on the
data set?
Or is that a partial `reproduction' that falls under the
original's chart copyright?
If getting the lat and lon of the coastline is considered a
partial reprod
Branden Robinson wrote:
> What part of "Free Software" don't you understand?
>
> If we distribute it, it's software.
>
> If it's not software (or willing to be treated as such), it's not our
> mission to distribute it.
Oh give me a break. Where was this argument in the past when we
discussed
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:16:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > I guess these are all software then:
> >
> > debian-guide - Text from: Debian GNU/Linux: Guide to Installation and
> Usage
> > dwarfs-debian-guide - Dwarf's g
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Is it even legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license?
> Any elisp code uses the emacs builtin functions extensively. These are
> protected by the GPL. The concept of linking gets very blurry here,
> too.
Good question. I never thought of that. Most lines of
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this? You state it like it
> > was a matter of fact. Is this documented anywhere?
>
> I didn't dismiss it.
I guess I mi
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 02:30:42PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > If any non-trivial code makes a call to an Emacs function, even
> > say 'buffer-substring', then do we consider that loaded code a
> > GPL'ed library? I gue
Raul Miller wrote:
> Wrong side of the interface. Of course the implementation of
> buffer-substring is copyrightable.
>
> However, is the code that calls it copyrightable? That's essentially
> what you were asking about in the question I was answering.
Here's what I meant: minor-mode foobar
The GPL does allow any company to take GPL'ed code and make a commercial
product derived from it. Note that I said commercial product, not
proprietary. To respect the license, they would have to distribute the
source code of their derived products along with any binary they sell, and
they would
> > It sounds similar to the mandatory "Powered by Zope" button that was
> > kicked around by the Zope guys but ultimately rejected as non-free.
>
> Uh?
I don't see that either. There no requirement for use, only for
distribution. But is it non-free anyway? I don't know.
> The text
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:54:18AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > But I think including the URL in the package description would satisfy
> > the license.
>
> Are we to permit licensors to dictate to us the precise contents of our
> package descriptions? Sh
> They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> violate the DFSG.
As someone who has packaged documentation before, I'm surprised that
Debian would agree with this. It's clearly non-free for software, and I
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 10:50:06AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > They also told me that they don't want to allow the commercial
> > > distribution of the book, anyway again in their opinion this doesn't
> > > violate the DFSG.
> >
> &
> > So far, we have generally chosen to interpret the aggregation clause
> > *very* strictly, as requiring even trivial aggregations to be
> > permitted. The license should also be neutral about the medium it is
> > distributed on.
>
> Well, why not simply drop this clause, if it can be circumven
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:47:19AM +0100, Sven wrote:
>
> > > But the content of the debian package is obtained from the website.
> > > (IIRC the source of the book is not available).
> > > The copyright notice of the debian package is related to what has
> > > been downloaded isn't? No
> Well, we should at least the say that we consider documentation as being
> software,
This is a central point. Some have argued that the DFSG doesn't apply
to documentation, others have argued that it's all we have to go on for
now. That's what I'll do here.
> > Let me try the following: s/pr
"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "TB" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> A.
> >> [...]
> >> You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or
> >> use of this file or modified versions or fragments thereof,
> >> except for a nominal charge f
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Looks like words lifted from the Artistic license ( "Reasonable copying
> > fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:55:06PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > which sounds like the Artistic license's
> >
> > "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of
> > media cost, duplication charges, time of people i
> Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
> > I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
>
> There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
>
> Wichert.
It's been discussed before, but I couldn't point you to a thread. It's
okay to license something under the GPL for everybody
> On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 01:16, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:44:55AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 00:30, Brian May wrote:
> > > > 2. If you wrote and released the program under the GPL, and you designe
> d
> > > > it specifically to work with those fa
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:40:18PM +0200, Marco Budde wrote:
> > Branden Robinson schrieb:
> > > Section 6 of the GNU
> > > GPL will apply to Debian and if your license makes it impossible for
> us
> > > to comply with it, as it does, then we will
A short two cents from a user...
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (1) The intersection of those interested in LaTeX and those
> > seriously interested in Debian is almost empty, I imagine.
I'm a LaTeX user and Debian developer.
> > (2
Ralf Treinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone point me to examples of such exception clauses to GPL?
>
> -Ralf.
Not exactly the same case, but xwatch is GPLed and has an exemption
clause to link to a non-free library. The add-on is the third paragraph
below:
XWatch - a tool to monitor
Mikael Hedin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Please cc me on replies]
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm packaging tela, and the newest version uses cdf[1] (from nasa).
> The cdf copyright[2] is basically 'only non-profit'. However, there
> is a line about inclusion in substantive product allowint for profit.
>
>
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for adopting the package. However, I really do not understand
> how it conflicts with point four:
>
> DFSG point four:
>
> 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
>
> The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modifi
Ali Akcaagac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i'm writing some software for linux and right now fighting with what
> license i should use.
> i don't like the idea to work for free
> knowing in the back that some companies can take the stuff and sell it
> for their own
Ali Akcaagac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 17:55, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > well i don't have any problems releasing the sourcecode.
> >
> > That shows that you have not understood "Open Source". Open source is
> > not just about releasing source code. It's also about allo
Ali Akcaagac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>people
> like you are not worth the effort of writing any software.
Re-email my messages. They were not impolite.
>something
> tha
Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for message. I've forwarded your message to ilisp-devel for
> their consideration as well as debian-legal. ILISP has been an
> important part of Lisp development for many years, so it is essential
> to clarify the issue completely.
>
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
