On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Mike Bilow wrote:
>
> By allowing someone to maintain a web site which looks almost exactly like
> the Debian web site, including its distinctive appearance, including color
> scheme, layout, display typography, and even the "swirl" graphic, I think
> there is a substantial li
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:43:50PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> I think the copyright issue is secondary to the trademark issue in
> importance, as I have said already.
I agree with you on this point.
--
Raul
> > Is this the same kind of uncertainty that exists about whether computer
> > source is subject to copyright protection at all?
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:33:31PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> Copyright protects the "essential character" of a "work of
>authorship."
>
> In the case of a computer pro
On 2000-06-02 at 11:11 -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > The critical question, then, is: what remedy should Debian seek here?
* * *
> Remedy? They should give credit to Debian in the source, and make their
> source available. Oh, wait - they do that already.
I disagree with this. I think the copyri
On 2000-06-02 at 13:55 -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:47:31PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> > I recognize your point, but there is enormous uncertainty whether HTML
> > source is subject to copyright protection at all, as distinct from
> > rendered HTML. The problem is that co
> The critical question, then, is: what remedy should Debian seek here?
Indeed. I'd sum it up as "do we care that they reused our HTML code, and
may or may not have broken a law by doing so."
Personally, it's mildly annoying, in the same way that it would be mildly
annoying for a commercial Unix
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:41:47PM +, Daniel Glassey wrote:
> It's a pain bringing this up again (KDE and stuff), but it would be useful
> to know what the position on kde-libs (for KDE 2)is.
>
> If the licensing is ok and someone will maintain it, will it be allowed into
> woody so that oth
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:47:31PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> I recognize your point, but there is enormous uncertainty whether HTML
> source is subject to copyright protection at all, as distinct from
> rendered HTML. The problem is that copyright protects, by definition,
> an actual expression of
On 2000-06-02 at 17:46 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* * *
> >Further, it is doubtful that invisible (that is,
> >unrendered) parts of the HTML source, such as META tags, could be
> >protected by copyright at all.
>
> Clearly, however, such tags are more impo
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:41:47PM +, Daniel Glassey wrote:
> It's a pain bringing this up again (KDE and stuff), but it would be useful
> to know what the position on kde-libs (for KDE 2)is.
>
> If the licensing is ok and someone will maintain it, will it be allowed into
> woody so that oth
On 2000-06-02 at 12:07 -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:01:23PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> > Yes, but it is not clear to me that this is a violation of the OPL. The
> > problem is that the OPL is overwhelmingly concerned with, and written
> > subject to the assumption that,
Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2000-06-02 at 11:08 +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
>> Have you seen the source from the API-website?
>>
>> That haven't even changed the meta-tags, from the debian website. It
>> is clearlky, to me, that they have copied the html and chenged the
>> text.
[.
It's a pain bringing this up again (KDE and stuff), but it would be useful
to know what the position on kde-libs (for KDE 2)is.
If the licensing is ok and someone will maintain it, will it be allowed into
woody so that other apps that use it, qt and have the qt exception to the
GPL could be in
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:01:23PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> Yes, but it is not clear to me that this is a violation of the OPL. The
> problem is that the OPL is overwhelmingly concerned with, and written
> subject to the assumption that, it is protecting something equivalent to a
> book. This m
On 2000-06-02 at 11:08 +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > artistic character. It is also not clear to me whether the API web site,
> > with entirely new text, is a derivation from or an aggregation with the
>
> Have you seen the source from the API-websit
Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> artistic character. It is also not clear to me whether the API web site,
> with entirely new text, is a derivation from or an aggregation with the
Have you seen the source from the API-website?
That haven't even changed the meta-tags, from the debian web
On 2000-06-01 at 13:56 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> > http://www.491.org/projets/api/
>
> Nice. Time to write them a letter I guess. How about something like this:
>
> --
>
> We recentl
17 matches
Mail list logo
