Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

2006-02-13 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Hamish Moffatt] > That Debian "expects that simply providing the source alongside ..." > does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient > for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that > doesn't seem to affect its freeness. One must remember, however, t

figlet fonts - GPL-ok?

2001-08-18 Thread Peter Samuelson
About a year ago I was hacking on a curses CD player app (groovycd, which is GPL) which features a large ascii-art numeral display. I added the capability for multiple fonts, and converted a few Figlet fonts[1] that look good there. Trouble is I can't find a license statement for any of these fo

Re: figlet fonts - GPL-ok?

2001-08-20 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Branden] > Bitmapped fonts are not copyrightable in the United States. Thanks. I guess you would know. (: > Hinted fonts, because they contain what could be construed as > algorithmic or programmatic constructs, are copyrightable. As you guessed, Figlet fonts are quite primitive. They do hav

Re: GPL and linking

2005-05-11 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Humberto Massa] > > It had equated the two of them in the first part of the phrase. [Raul Miller] > The GPL did not use the word "equals". > Neither "that is to say" nor "namely" are equal to "equals". Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic distinctions as claimi

Re: GPL and linking

2005-05-11 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Raul Miller] > However, I can present my point of view without resorting to this argument: ... > Does that make sense? Much clearer, thanks. I was annoyed by the increasingly fine hair-splitting - thanks for bringing the level back to the realm of the meaningful. signature.asc Description: Di

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

2005-05-18 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Charles Iliya Krempeaux] > It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so. And then tried > to "take things back". But the GPL doesn't allow for that. It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes for a postulate just because the FSF said so. Rather like the assumption

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

2005-05-18 Thread Peter Samuelson
> > Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails > > the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely > > unsuitable for any serious deployment. [Roberto C. Sanchez] > But it can't be done, period. > > Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Tha