On 14-May-00, 00:08 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. You get the right (not the duty) to let people get copies from
> > you.
>
> So, if I make modifications to the source, you're saying that I have
> the right to redistribute and no duty to do so?
>
Absolutely. The GPL rule
On 14-May-00, 03:05 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Absolutely. The GPL rule is that *if* you want to distribute your
> > modifications, you must make the source available. If you only modify
> > for personal use, you are under no obligation to distribute.
>
> After the fact, I'
On 14-May-00, 14:22 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure it is the common understanding, because I've read that
> > interpetation in several places; It's not original with me.
>
> I believe you, and I hope your right . . . but
There's a ongoing discussion in the AskS
On 15-May-00, 05:11 (CDT), Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here.
>
> I think there's a troll here.
Huh? Mike's note was a very well-written explanation (much better than
my attempts) of why
On 15-May-00, 11:47 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:56:44AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > as Jutta pointed out
>
> Who?
You, of course. Sorry, I didn't go back and look while I was composing,
and just remembere
On 16-May-00, 01:18 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DDD is now apparently under the aegis of GNU. The quote I give comes
> straight from the GNU's mouth in a short section devoted to explaining
> the power they want the GPL to confer.
I recently defended Mr. Serice from a trollin
On 16-May-00, 19:25 (CDT), Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Harvey comments:
>
>Subsequent to and as a result of the outcome of the LaMacchia case,
>Congress amended the criminal copyright statute so that it currently
>punishes copyright infringement, whether or not the infring
On 17-May-00, 06:53 (CDT), Jimmy O'Regan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> ) So I can loan out my CDs up to about 1283 times each, making the worst
> ) case assumption that each loanee makes a copy. (Based on a list pric
On 18-May-00, 04:30 (CDT), Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> >...
> > plugger is in contrib for a reason. ns-plugin-sdk can't be distributed. I
> > have a local deb of it, but I can't send it anywhere, as it has no copyright
> > at all, and nets
On 19-May-00, 15:27 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then I wake up one day to learn that GPL isn't what I thought it was.
> Well, its social reach extended further than I thought it did. It seems
> to be about making sure that the community immediately has access to the
> source c
On 21-May-00, 01:51 (CDT), Lindsay Haisley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are several levels of 'ownership' here. What are called 'mechanical'
> rights - the rights to the actual recorded sound are different from the
> rights to the arrangement, lyrics and music. I can see where record
> com
On 22-May-00, 18:19 (CDT), "Stephen R. Gore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel that there may be a very real chance that the copyright holder
> might accept the changes into upstream. But I doubt it could be done
> in time for release.
The problem with this kind of license is the ongoing issue
On 23-May-00, 00:56 (CDT), Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This would be my position: once you edit in the "debian" subdirectory, you
> are modifying the source tree. I don't see any way of satisfying the
> license other than by distributing source patches and letting the user
> build, as
On 02-Aug-00, 07:22 (CDT), Rene Mayrhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Do I have the possibility to say "use it in any way, do with the
> content what you want but do not sell CD-ROMs produced with the
> official Gibraltar ISO-images" ?
The "problem" [1] with the GPL is that it makes it very diffi
On 21-Aug-00, 14:59 (CDT), Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 distribute VIEWMOL in its entirety, for
."). Non-free. If she had
written just "We appreciate..." I'd be comfortable putting it in free.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
the whole thing under the
GPL? Cool!
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
look at the "Clarified Artistic License":
http://www.appwatch.com/license/ncftp-3.0.2.txt
This is listed on the FSF page as free and GPL compatible.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
of our ideals.
It's simply not worth it.
Steve
[1] I'm not sure I'd argue that all software (actually algorithm)
patents are inherently invalid[2], just that the US Patent Office isn't
competent to judge "unobvious" or "prior-art".
[2] Unlike "
On 19-May-01, 23:03 (CDT), John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and
> >thus does not "stay true to our ideals".
>
> It can be worded that De
omething sneaky.
> But you seem to have some kind of in-principle objection to the idea,
> even assuming it passes muster with lawyers?
Absolutely.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
would have
to apply to those mirrors and all their mirrors, etc.
I don't think there's currently anything in non-free that can't be
*distributed* freely. If there is, I hope the person who put it there
has read the license carefully and understood all the ramifications.
Steve
--
St
ple work for AMD. :-)
On the other hand, if we can't modify, what purpose is served
by us distributing it at all? It's available from the Intel
website, right? It's just a file that gets installed by the loader,
right? There's no integration issue.
Steve
--
Steve Greenlan
e.
The license cannot forbid actions that are specifically allowed by
copyright law, such as reverse-engineering (in some countries).
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
n't even go into
non-free, because it doesn't allow binary distribution. Unless it's in
an interpeted language like Perl or Python, of course.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
in gnu.misc.discuss. (Or not --
it's been hashed out hundreds of times already). But this particular
argument (Henning's) makes me crazy, because the answer is so obvious,
and I don't understand why the proponents of "the GPL steals my code"
can't (won't?) see it.)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
on of the word
'use'. Given the rest of the code licenses, I would wager that the
intent is there, but if you wanted to be absolutely sure, you could
contact the authors of the code covered by this particular license.
Steve
PS John Galt: I'm sure your editor has a 'cut' or
we *do* respect copyright, if we didn't we'd distribute
the stuff regardless of license. What we (in the US, anyway) object
to is the paid enactment of laws designed to protect the financial
interests of large corporations, which is what the DMCA is all about.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <
like a distinction for a patent than a copyright. I
can copyright a painting (or rather, copyright applies to paintings,
photography, and other visual works). Has there been a published
decision that copyright doesn't apply to bitmap font?
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 20-Aug-01, 12:12 (CDT), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:34:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 18-Aug-01, 22:46 (CDT), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Bitmapped fonts are not copy
Heavily snipped, but Edmund missed to key words.
On 25-Aug-01, 03:01 (CDT), Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > When I understand the stuff on http://cdimages.debian.org
> > correctly, Debian suggests to sell also incomplete sets of
On 29-Aug-01, 23:08 (CDT), John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The funny part is the selfsame stuff that makes GIF viewers non-free is
> blithely in gzip. Ah well, consistency has never been a hallmark of
> patents WRT non-free.
You're confused. There are plenty of GIF viewers in us/main. The
rt. Does this translate into:
While I agree that it not as clear as it could be, this seems to be a
fairly common way of expressing the idea that no payment needs to be
made to the copyright holder, and we have previously accepted licenses
with identical wording and DFSG free.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
software
> into non-free.
If you fail to get permission, we probably can't distribute it all,
unless the Debian diff.gz does not touch the original jove source code
at all.
Steve
[1] If it is, the program still has to go into non-free.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 27-Nov-01, 14:53 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:59:57PM +, M. Drew Streib wrote:
> > The intent, although IMO abusable, is to give the author a chance to make
> > a statement, but continue to allow derivative works of all the actual
> > relev
ly the kind of problem you have when you distort someone's
> position and make straw-man arguments.
I'll cop to the straw-man, but I don't think I distorted your basic
position. You think that it's better to have a quantitative measure of
how much non-modifiable stuff we can have. I think that leads to more
problems than it solves (or alternatively, that it doesn't solve the
real problem).
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
gt; easier to move the mouse, c&p the missing sentence and paste it into
> the glibc manual. But I am not allowed to do that, by copyright.
While the rest of your post is spot-on, I think quoting a sentence for
purpose of a bug report is covered by fair use.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
ackager would be
> forced, I think, to use DBS to avoid that.
The "target file system" is the Debian archive. One of the conventions
of the Debian archive is that original tarballs are renamed to include
".orig". What's the problem? :-)
If they wanna play "letter, no
led the conversion from
DOS/WordPerfect to Windows and Word. All I can offer is that I was both
young and misguided at the time. I'm no longer young...
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be t
rporations and lobbyists, depending on your level of cynicism.
[2] "We", many of the Debian developers, but almost certainly not all.
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
member of Debian has made
other claims about it.
[2] Also, that it wasn't written by RMS, although he defined basically
the same things ~20 years ago.
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
'd agree on every
single borderline case? Or do you expect us to bow to your (OSI's)
judgement in what is "free software"? Sorry, you guys blew that chance a
long time ago. I'd much rather trust the regulars on debian-legal (aka
"the elite cabal") than OSI. Hell, I rather turn the whole thing over to
RMS - he is, if nothing else, consistent.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
ver consensus even if we agreed
> with each other.
We probably have consensus on that point.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
ptions of both "open
source" and "public domain" mean, and ask him to clarify, because right
now we don't know what he wants. If you'd like help writing this up, I'm
sure d-l would be glad to help.
Regards,
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gate
rticular, if I were considering maintaining such a program, I'd want
to know if I needed a new permission to distribute new version, or if I
could get blanket permision along the lines of "debian may distribute
modified versions of ROOT".
But I'm not.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
Th
ile it and run it." (from the same page)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
tions, they'd install from
scratch, like proper DJB sycophants.)
steveg
[1] IANAL, yadda yadda yadda
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
On 30-Jan-99, 19:52 (GMT), Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought I saw a conversation somewhere that said saying a license "is
> in the public domain" isn't good enough. What is Debian's position on
> this WRT the DFSG?
I've always understood that placing a (formerly/potentially)
On 10-Jun-99, 21:39 (CDT), Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If YoyoDyne wants to put a GUI wrapper around the dpkg, what then?
> > Does making a GUI wrapper for the product become a case of
> > "incorporating" it into a propietary system?
.)
> And who
> _are_ the authors in the case of GPL'ed code?
The GPL doesn't change authorship (or copyright holder). You should be
able to find the author listed in the source code. In the case of dpkg,
it's Ian Jackson and several others.
Steve Greenland
On 11-Jun-99, 21:39 (CDT), John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Perens writes:
> > "elaborations" is pretty broad. There's still room for the licensor to
> > state what they consider permissible use in their license.
>
> "Editorial elaborations". I think that is fairly clear. There is
On 12-Jun-99, 09:18 (CDT), John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland writes:
> > Is 'system ("dpkg -command arg");' an "editorial elaboration"?
>
> No. It's a reference (a concept that predates software). A work that
&g
On 14-Jun-99, 15:14 (CDT), Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /*
> * Doing my best to get this moved to -legal
> */
posted to -legal only --sg :-)
> On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > | Redistribution of this release is permitt
On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license,
> which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the
> version number.
> Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those
> two 0.6.1 v
anges made to such a distribution are probably
low. The whole free software development model is based on have lots of
people use, evaluate, and fix programs.
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
s true. Don't we have to have the right to
redistribute for a package to be in non-free? If not, how do we get away
with mirroring non-free?
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
On 22-Apr-00, 12:22 (CDT), Florian Lohoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The relation might be from "on earth", "on same spindle", "same filesystem",
> "same archive", "same ftp server", "same directory", "compiled with
> same compiler" etc - All these are inacceptable as a "contamination"
> clause
On 23-Apr-00, 09:57 (CDT), Florian Lohoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 01:15:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> just wanted to discuss the ability to "misinterpret" the DFSG Par. 9
> and possibly working creativly on a change for the terminolo
On 24-Apr-00, 00:29 (CDT), John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question then becomes one of which license is violated. The violated
> license is logically the more restrictive in that particular circumstance
> and the logical assumption may be extended via generalization, after
> suitable
On 02-Aug-00, 07:22 (CDT), Rene Mayrhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Do I have the possibility to say "use it in any way, do with the
> content what you want but do not sell CD-ROMs produced with the
> official Gibraltar ISO-images" ?
The "problem" [1] with the GPL is that it makes it very diff
60 matches
Mail list logo
