directly involved in the cases
> above, terminate?
So you prefer that the license, like most earlier Free Software
licenses, say nothing at all about patents in order to remain free,
while IBM retains the freedom to sue you for infringing their patents
*whether or not* you sued them first
are concerned, not for civil suits. Juries are rarely
insisted upon for civil cases.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
uld be
non-free. However, I have never seen anyone exercise this particular
option -- I had even forgotten it was there.
Reagrds,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
is
without concerns over GPL-compatibility, because you just have an
aggregation of source code.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ent would be a
conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid, or that anyone
having made modifications to RT3 has failed to comply with the license,
resulting in a finding that anyone making modifications is infringing Best
Practical's copyright.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
always in the hands of the ftp-masters to
act on a removal request (or not). The only criterion that matters is
whether the ftp-masters are persuaded that removal is the right thing to
do.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
. I can't think of any danger arising from
distributing source with binaries that couldn't reasonably be addressed
by sanitizing the code in question to hide its authorship. Copyleft also
doesn't concern itself with contributors being branded idiot programmers
based on the quality of their code, and I find this to be entirely
sensible.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
3(c) non-free?
Distribution under 3(b) and 3(c) is an additional freedom, above and
beyond the option presented by 3(a). Since Debian only uses 3(a), I think
debian-legal can safely punt on this question. ;-)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 01:02:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> The dissident test only makes any sense at all because it suggests that
> >> certa
t to the program (and other plug-ins).
Or, it may be the author's intent to only permit source distribution.
Assuming that the author doesn't understand the consequences of his
chosen license is not a sound legal strategy.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
u is nominally the same as the cost in the GPL. I don't
believe this is true.
> The GPL's requirement that I give a license to any recipient does have
> a cost to me, but I receive no benefit from it, so it is not a fee.
Crossed pronouns here? You *do* receive benefit from it -
#x27;t
live long enough to contribute much code. OTOH, one might expect such a
dissident (since we're sympathetic to him and have such concern for his
safety) to be an ethical being, who does not wish to ignore the wishes
of his neighbor as expressed in the software license.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
?
> The GPL discriminates against people on desert islands who have a
> binary CD but not a source one.
How?
> Make the tests sufficiently silly and we can ban every single license
> for discriminating against a field of endeavour.
Sure, but I don't think either the dissiden
g the
> >license.
> Well, he may have that written offer to get source copies for three year,
> don't he ?
In which case, he's allowed to pass that offer on to his companions on
the island, as long as he's not engaging in commercial distribution.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
aries is an arbitrary third party, of
*your* choosing, giving them the sources as well as a requirement of
distribution is not (necessarily) of benefit to either the licensor or
the distributor who gave the source to you. Therefore, it is not a fee
because it was not given in *exchange* for the license.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
his before a judge. So even if you missed the TV ad,
there'd still be a request you would be answerable for.
But the big issue here is still that if the license is only free because
you won't get *caught* violating it, it's not free.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ood, then upstream should not object to this void clause being removed
from the license.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
etting a rubber-stamp from debian-legal that this license is ok, or
barring that, arguing the list into submission. You provide no "solid
evidence" that the choice of venue clause is truly void, but rather
expect us to provide the contrary. Debian cannot afford to ship
software under l
e release as a shield
against open and frank discussion about the problems with the QPL. If
the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've
spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's
chances of remaining in the archive.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
gt; I also contacted upstream, let's see what he will say to it, i doubt it will
> be positive though.
I hope it may be; but if not, I hope we can at least have a productive
discussion with upstream about these concerns over the license -- more
productive than this in-house discussion seem
was not 258918, which is far too recent to have shown up
on the release team's radar yet as a removal issue, but 241279,
affecting a library that abiword depends on. An alternative resolution
for 241279 has since been found that doesn't involve ripping out abiword
and half the GNOME
gt; DFSG.
No, just France.
> Already the fact that we report the debian activity of every participants to
> the US secret aganecies, as part of the crypto in main thingy, is dubious
> enough.
There are no secret agencies that we're reporting this activity to. The
customs office is not a secret agency.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
uition, and my legal counsel.
Would your legal counsel be willing to offer pro-bono advice to the
Debian project? If not, this seems to be just another non-binding
opinion.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- or control of it -- is at the core of
software IP laws, which are the framework in which Debian operates.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
nsor.
Free software licensing presupposes that the copyright holder has the
ability to grant you certain freedoms over the code. When this is not
the case due to outside forces (e.g., patent holders or averse
governments), we should not view this as a flaw in the license if this
license gives us t
r commercial sale. Metrowerks Codewarrior used to be under a
> similar license; I assume it still is.
This is no guarantee that such restrictions are grounded in copyright
law.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
k this
is a useful definition of freedom. Freedom to distribute binaries is
useful, but is secondary to the freedom to share source code.
> As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients
> automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless
> otherwise expli
t is "paid" to the upstream developer, and
> not if it is "paid" to someone you are already distributing the
> software to.
Do you disagree with the definition I've advanced in earlier messages,
that a fee is something given in *exchange* for a license?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
27;s interest to remove it to
make the license easier to understand, you responded with derision.
You are clearly not interested in solving this issue.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
l translation services are comparable
in price to professional legal services, so this makes my cost higher
than yours, biasing the outcome.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
FSG
doesn't explicitly prohibit them?
Forget these inane arguments about what the DFSG does or doesn't
prohibit; why would we WANT to expose our users to licenses like this?
I can't see any reason that you feel this way other than your personal
investment of time in these packages.
--
that you can exercise the freedoms listed in the
DFSG". This is not zero-risk, because nothing in life is zero-risk; the
copyright holder could be acting in bad faith, or you could be sued by a
third party for patent infringement, or even for copyright infringement.
The point is that we don
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this k
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:10:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients
> > > automati
unt of this second requirement.
In any case, the issue is not linked at all to the FSF's much weaker
claim that applications constitute derivative works of libraries.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
't be resolved
quickly.
> (I'm sure someone with more Debian skill can do this checking better and
> more accurate - these numbers were obtained by some rather crude and
> error-prone scripts.)
It's possible to quickly find a list of packages using libcurl2/3, but
checking t
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:02:06AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 04:17:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I'm not a Debian guru, but I scanned through the list of apps depending
> > > on
> > > curl to see what licenses
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If your understanding of the license exception requirements were
> > correct, it would be a very easy loophole for people to exploit, using
> > GPL-c
hink it was california, decided that it
> could sue people all over the world ?
You seem to get a different version of the news than I do; the case I've
heard of involved a Debian developer successfully appealing to the
California Supreme Court, and overturning this jurisdictional claim.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s, but for legal distribution. Even if we have one or two
> people who can read a given language fluently, the license still won't
> receive anything approaching the level of scrutiny it would receive
> with the whole list able to read it.
Agreed; I think at a minimum we need eit
ble to people who don't
speak English, it's important that we have *some* lingua franca for core
matters, and English is this lingua franca.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
line with the goals of the framers.
And while you're free to doubt that this was the intent, this is
nevertheless what the letter of the license encodes.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.
Why? The plain-English meaning of the phrase "accompanies the
executable" would imply no such thing, and would in fact appear to be
contrary to the intent of this part of the license.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:13:53PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:46:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Why? The plain-English meaning of the phrase "accompanies the
> > executable" would imply no such thing, and would in fact appear to be
>
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:50:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 03:38:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Huh? There is no copyright infringement here because *the GPL
> > explicitly allows this form of distribution*.
> I was talking about the relatio
tations already used by OOo, btw?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ions are granted for derivative works only if those works
> contain no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
> Texts."
That's a possibility, but without buy-in from the FSF, I don't regard
the GFDL as a particularly good starting point for a free document
most heartily agree
that he should avoid throwing money to that pit of sharks.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
going to work.
This permission would have to come from more than just FreeRadius
upstream, as it links in a number of other libraries including some that
are distributed under the GPL.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
" is a call to
be made by a judge, and common sense is a strong indicator for this. If the
Mozilla authors try to claim that "freebird" and "thunderbird" are
confusingly similar, they should be ignored. (The names "firebird" and
"freebird" could be considered confusingly similar, however; I wouldn't opt
for "freebird" as a replacement name here without buy-in from the Mozilla
folks.)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
nse?
If we're not doing anything that requires licensing the trademark, a
requirement in the trademark license to change the command names is
ignorable.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 03:57:48PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 09:37:23PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distributed
ts as part of their software license in order to consider it free. We
merely opt not to distribute software that's covered by patents that are
actively being enforced. The current patent regime is sufficiently broken,
and so much inanely trivial activity is covered by patents, that *asking*
people for patent licenses really is a slippery slope that we don't want to
start down.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:50:12PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The reality is that we do *not* require authors to extend us a license to
> > patents as part of their software license in order to consider it free. We
I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies, crumble
them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and are allowed to
sell them as Oreo shakes. So there seems to be precedent that trademark law
allows us to do the same with Mozilla. ;)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
write letters to Duracell, Namco, and Hummer.
I agree that this would be a good use of your time. I encourage you to
dedicate yourself to this task ASAP.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> > crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> > are a
ation
from the author, as it fails DFSG #6.
Please base your arguments in favor of the freeness of a given license on
something more substantial than Shit You Made Up.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> > > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. aut
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:25:06AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:00:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > I can only find it currently in 2 packages in Debian--prozilla and elinks.
>
d has been civil and patient.
> I'm going to expend my patience on someone else. Bye.
Is getting the last word on a public mailing list regarding an issue that
has already been amicably resolved by the parties involved an element of
civil and polite discussion?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ts, does not appear to be
actively enforced. This is the standard Debian uses in deciding whether to
distribute the software; Red Hat evidently uses a different standard.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
y package
in Debian with mp3 decoding support.
> When a business or other organisation wants to redistribute Debian
> packages, it would be useful to be able to split off the sub-packages
> with known patent licensing problems.
When it's known to be an actual licensing problem, I'm sure Debian will
address it.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:45:24PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:54:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > However, the reason Debian continues to include the mp3 decoder library is
> > that this patent, like so many other software patents, does n
of patents on mp3 *encoders*, not on
mp3 *de*coders. Please do not conflate the two issues. (Well, I suppose
that you can in your own work, but Debian will continue to consider them
separately.)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
h the
current illegitimate patent regime, over the word of someone who works for
an organization dedicated to fighting this threat to intellectual freedom?
Why would we do that?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:25:03PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > If I were you I would be very, very cautious about inviting the SFLC
he same in the absence of some concrete support for the claim that mp3
*players* are patent-encumbered.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 11:43:27AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > AFAIK there is no public evidence that Red Hat's (which is who I assume
> > you're principally referring to) decision not to ship mp
nspecified patent -- we'd have no software left to distribute
by the time we were done.
> What if a commercial distributor of Debian code gets sued, then drags
> Debian and SPI into the case?
I'm not used to thinking of Debian's redistributors as being under the
control of ra
xist even in USA.
No, US law does not recognize the concept of a creator's "moral rights"
with respect to *any* work, software or not. We have laws against
slander and libel, but this is not the same thing -- which is why
several of us keep repeating that one does not have to build protection
against defamation into one's copyright license.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpalSiR1MzOT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it."
LGPL, section 2.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgplz6H0huGMc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t's ok that
this separate work carry a different license. If it can't be
distributed as a separate work, then at a minimum, that term of the
license is a no-op -- and at most, there may be nothing left that the
original authors can claim copyright on.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpYxJhoJTaQg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:02:53AM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No, US law does not recognize the concept of a creator's "moral rights"
> > with respect to *any* work, software or not.
> It's not very popular,
, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so
> angrily demanded by you.
Censoring somebody else's opinion by doing something like killfilling
them?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpEysOjTcDP3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
vestment in
> time, effort or money for its creation. European countries also
> have trademarks, which you can get even without being creative
> and original. It's a different law.
Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
-- by virtue of the f
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [database protection]
> > Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> > -- by virtue of the fact that it'
re advocacy". I do: it's a restriction on
freedom.
> > that a "verbatim copying only" license is Free?)
> 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 everywhere in everyone's freedom.
We shall not distribute it.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpUojfYuMZm7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
identical work does infringe the copyright of the
pre-existing work, and that it is the intent of the GPL to divest the
copyright holder of any ability to pursue copyright infringements, each
of the above outcomes are congruent in this respect: the license on the
Sun RPC code, as put forth by Brian T. Sniffen in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, is GPL compatible.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgp2F9XZEqcC2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ds much promise for the future of Free Software
in general.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgptqdNhVSDYN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
on: if you're aware of an infringing use, and
you make no effort to enforce your trademark, this sets a legal
precedent that will come back to haunt you later when someone infringes
in a manner you *do* care about.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpCa22p3sDBe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
this would cause major interoperability problems,
> totally defeating the purpose of having an international
> image-compression standard in the first place.
This is a common desire, but it's irreconcilably non-free.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgp0npqqY8dHq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
gt; the manual author. This part should be invariant.
Yes, and our goal is to always respect authors: by not distributing
works that they don't wish to make available under the terms of the
DFSG.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpvSxTofEOxF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
he DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
"Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please
give credit to the Debian project if you do."
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
Go away, troll.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpfbjbKxDeyK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ou from working on them, if
you feel this is important to resolve prior to release. But if no one
is willing to work on them, your claim that there won't be a significant
delay seems rather ephemeral.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgp47EmRo1NnA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
the patent holder is
likely to enforce those patents against someone creating a derivative
work from this software, that may be grounds to keep the software out of
Debian for the protection of our users and redistributors; but that's
not a function of the DFSG, IMHO.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
lf. (The
readline extension is one example.) Binaries for these modules can't be
distributed in Debian, but that doesn't mean you can't write a PHP
extension for a GPL library and distribute it on your own.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpPj3LJ2gk0o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to
> > > bother. N
as a click-through,
because most of the information contained in the GPL does not pertain to
end users at all. What you would really want is something much more
limited, such as a disclaimer as described in 2(c) together with an
'accept' button.
FWIW, to date I'm not aware of any en
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:07:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing
> >solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious,
&
one stating that the converse is also
desirable.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpWDmOxtYO34.pgp
Description: PGP signature
binary (DLL) form
> using WINE.
Agreed with you and Branden on all points. Only other comment is that
if there's interest, it might be worthwhile to try building those
modules as Wine ELF DLLs using the various tools available for that.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpM7bltVSN4R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
purports to restrict this. The only way
> it can is if it's a lease. If it's a transfer of ownership, then it
> can't. I'm not totally convinced one way or another is right, but case
> law and legislation (UCITA, etc.) seems to be going towards leases.
*NOT* in th
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:32:19PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >>I'm not totally convinced one way or another is right, but case law
> >>and legis
en the
possibility of a judge being the one to clarify the letter. It was
sufficiently unclear that RMS indicated he would request clarification
of that part of the license from the lawyers.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpVagJ0SnfX6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
how
> > behaves).
> This seems a non-sequitur. Are you trying to say that you consider the
> pointing out of a fallacy in your reasoning to be an ad hominem attack?
> If so, then rational discussion with you is probably futile.
Cha-ching.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern program
with GPLv2 would necessarily also be DFSG-free.
As it stands, there are several terms in the GFDL which appear to each
render the license non-free from Debian's POV, regardless of GPL
compatibility.
Regards,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpIKqaKpDUEv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
he etymology would says). But the French language is made by the
> French and by the Academie Française.
And the English language is not -- and the word 'logiciel' does not
appear in the Social Contract. So while a look in a French dictionary
may shed some light on your chronic misunder
third
parties who we don't want to use said logo. So why does it matter
whether the logo is available under a free license?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpeLxN4KOFoa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
1 - 100 of 745 matches
Mail list logo
