ny news on the case of the swirl they have in their logo? I can't see
> any trace about this at all, the last question on this topic still
> stands unanswered (from what I can see).
>
> It looks like noone seems to care about this rip off at all and I don't
> know where
Again... this whole issue seems like it originated with me
misunderstanding Branden.
I somehow (don't ask me how) got under the impression that he thought
that the "Debian shall remain 100% free software"-part of the social
contract meant that every part of every piece of software should
comp
On Monday, November 26, 2001, at 02:18 AM, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Did he get your messages? He doesn't subscribe to debian-legal, so if
you over-zealously trimmed him from your messages, of course he
wouldn't get them.
I'm sure he got at least one (he has that auto-response thing going on
I must confess, I'm very happy with Branden's proposal.
The shorter and informal one that Thomas posted would probably suffice,
but I feel we can't do totally without one - it should at least be
stated somewhere, sometime that Debian *can* distribute license texts
and invariant, auxiliary mate
Or, we could point out that it's the Debian Free *Software*
Guidelines, not the Debian free-everything-in-the-world guidelines. I
Isn't that exactly what this is?
Besides, remember the Social Contract: "Debian will remain 100% Free
Software".
It can be interpreted as "All software in Debia
I think Branden's (despite his plea at the end) will end up getting
interpreted as narrow legal rules, and we will see people (perhaps
with pseudonymous initials JG) saying noise like "this meets the
letter of the rule, why are you complaining".
I think that the plea (and the fact that these ar
Either way, I thought of it first, I rule!
Er... I mean, don't blame me! Unless it's good. Then yeah, I thought of
it. Otherwise no.
Sunnanvind
(my noise-to-signal ratio will decrease, don't worry.)
I don't see why. It is pretty obvious to me that the existing DFSG
provides no exceptions to clause 3.
Ah, so it wasn't a misunderstanding after all. I wasn't confused.
I think it's pretty obvious that there is at least some confusion on
this issue. I've seen at least three confused people p
On Friday, December 28, 2001, at 03:23 PM, Michael Stutz wrote:
The licensing terms and copyright statement for a work are not a part
of the work itself.
If that is true, then arguably, then the same might go for the text that
the FSF says can be invariant in the GFDL.
Invariant secti
I just wanted to point out that the problem with the vim license is the
same as the problem with Apple's licensing for Darwin.
Not that that's important or significant in any way... or that this
email is meaningful..
Sue
On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 01:26 AM, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I just wanted to point out that the problem with the vim license is the
same as the problem with Apple's licensing for Darwin.
Is "Darwin" in Debian m
As soon as I find a search interface for the debian lists (is there
one?) I'll stop posting newbie questions as this one, but...
People have always referred to the BSD-license as "more permissive" and
"non-copyleft", and I've thought that it meant that (for example) anyone
could release modifi
On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:19 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
This appears to be a misunderstanding, because GNU is an operating
system--no more, no less.
It's also a funny animal, and some people also refer to the project that
set out to create the GNU system as "the GNU project". (Not
On tisdag, januari 15, 2002, at 04:52 , Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 09:10:04AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
Thanks Thomas, there is indeed no more invariant sections in gdbint
and stabs
manuals, and gdb manual has two called "Free Software" and "Free
Software
Needs Free Do
Zack wrote:
> Because debian is more "liberal" than FSF.
The DFSG are possibly (though I'm not sure) even harsher than the FSF
guidelines (the "four freedoms"). They need to be, to avoid legal
trouble (e.g. really make sure you have explicit freedom to
redistribute commercially.)
Sunnanvind
Marcus wrote:
> No. There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
> exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although
> the GFDL might become such a case).
The vim license was listed as a free license on gnu.org while
debian-legal debated it. (A
Marcus wrote:
> Right, RMS changed his opinion on this license shortly before the debate
> happened here.
So I noticed. That's how it goes, sometimes.
> Which is interesting, because I tend to disagree that it is
> free, but oh well ;)
In my (previously stated, for those keeping count) opinion
Marcus wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:22:18PM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> > Though the four freedoms of the FSF is a political statement. "These
> > are rights everyone should have when it comes to functional software"
> > - they're easily u
Walter Landry wrote:
> This rather long paragraph means that I can't take out some code
> covered by patents and use it to extend my favorite text editor.
> That would count as an additional restriction, and thus
> GPL-incompatible.
Well... Patents normally mean "Hey, hands off this". This pate
Hi, I just have a few comments right now, I'm sure the others will
follow with more enlightening and constructive stuff than this.
---
"The Document may contain no Invariant Sections." at line 62 -
"The Document doesn't have to include any Invariant Sections" might be
clearer, or something els
Sam Hartman wrote:
> It means that Apple does not need to include source for anything with
> their primary OS CDs. Apple is trying to avoid anything GPLed or
> LGPLed in the parts of the OS they pre-install. There of course GPL
> and LGPL components in the developer tools.
If I remember correctl
The way I always looked at this issue was like this:
Someone gives you a copy of (say) xsoldier, under the GPL v2, or
later, *your choice*. You can choose to pass that extra choice along
to everyone you distribute to (I like doing this) or you can choose
not to.
The choice itself is not a part o
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Matt Kraai wrote:
> > * it contains cryptographic program code which needed to be
> >stored on a non-US server because of United States export
> >restrictions, or
>
> This is no longer true.
So how should people in like, France,
Remember that hoopla a while ago about license texts themselves not
being DFSG-free? Well, isn't it the case with this program?
Did someone give
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Uh, I just posted an incomplete version of this mail to
debian-legal. Sorry. I hit C-c by mistake.
I tried to say "huh, did someone give express permission to distribute
modified versions of LICENSE.OpenSSL, because that's what's needed if
anyone was going to change it." but then I realized that c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> If you mean a bitmap font, then it's already free, because bitmap
> fonts are not copyrightable (in the US, at any rate; I'm not familiar
> with the law everywhere).
I think that dingbat fonts, with different symbols or pictures instead
of lette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think that dingbat fonts, with different symbols or pictures instead
> > of letters, are copyrightable here,
I'm getting tired. I meant to clarify "here in Sw
I know some people who're thinking of moving their proprietary
products to GPL instead, but they want to be able to link to some
jakarta jar-files. (obnoxiously ad-clause-licensed, iirc)
I suggested using the GPL with an exception clause (since the company
is sole copyright holder of the software
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> > I know some people who're thinking of moving their proprietary
> > products to GPL instead, but they want to be able to link to some
> > jakarta j
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes (when he's not
postmodernly making delirium-frogsies):
> > But program X, licensed under GPL-with-exception can link to both
> > jakarta and to GPL-ed stuff. Can it link to both at the same time? No?
>
> It cannot link to both at the same time, as this wou
I started thinking on the Apple license again. Unlike the GPL, which
is a copyright license, it appears to be an end user license agreement
which you have to agree with "prior to downloading the code" or
something like that.
As far as I can see, this has the potiential for violating FSF
"freedom
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And if they put users through a click-wrap license, but don't require it
> on redistribution, there seems to be no point.
I have trouble figuring out clause 2 in the APSL, specifically point
2.2.c.
> (I've seen some slightly confused Windows installers
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:11:25AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> > Anyone willing to clear things up?
>
> Sure. "EULA" is marketdrone speak for "a license permitting actions
> involving a copyrighted wo
Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty.
> Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software.
The main problem is that that's simply not true - you _can_ use the
software without accepting the license[1].
If you want to copy or
This issue has been brought up on debian lists before, iirc.
I seem to remember that the ad agency that produced that logo has long
since folded (and the company using the logo, elektrostore, said
something to the effect of "for all we know, it could be some clipart
or font image that Debian just
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion, the DFSG should not be interpreted in a way that
> legitimizes any restrictions on use, and this is what the FSF's "freedom
> zero" and DFSG 6 is about.
The FSF freedom zero, yes, but I don't see that in DFSG 6. I see
nothing in the DFS
Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
non-removability of invariant sections. In my very humble opinion,
Debian should try giving them that before taking (what would appear to
be) the more hostile actions suggeste
37 matches
Mail list logo
