Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2002-11-01 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No it doesn't. > The original copyright applies to the original work. > The translation's copyright applies to the translation. I'm afraid you are quite wrong. A translated work is a product of both the original autho

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2002-11-01 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And what is it if not a contract? It is not a "license" as issued by a > regulatory body. Contract law governs all agreements between civil > parties that aren't otherwise constrained by law. It is a grant of permission, which is, in fact, legally ca

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2002-11-01 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > My point exactly. A typical free software licence does not constrain > the future behaviour of the licenser. It's not a promise. My point is that it *is* a promise: By licencing my work under GPL, I promise to the world at large that anyone who

Making things non-free again (was: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED)

2002-11-01 Thread Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller
All standard disclaimers apply! I am not a lawyer. I am not a Debian developer. etc. Hi On Thursday 31 October 2002 19:03, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > > Contrary to what people might think, not only can I > >

off-topic discussion about permissions and promises

2002-11-01 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > My point exactly. A typical free software licence does not constrain > > the future behaviour of the licenser. It's not a promise. > > My point is that it *is* a promise: By licencing my work under GPL, I > promise to the world at large that anyone who sub

Re: [dev] Re: LZW patented file left in .orig.tar source package?

2002-11-01 Thread Nick Phillips
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:59:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > That's in one Federal Circuit, the 9th, which is also the most overruled [snip] Thanks for the explanations. -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Time to be aggressive. Go after a tattooed Virgo.

Re: Berkeley DB curious licensing practice

2002-11-01 Thread Bennett Todd
2002-10-31-16:59:35 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry: > On Thursday 31 October 2002 10:58, Bennett Todd wrote: > > But, if I'm obliged to distribute my in-house app in-house with an > > open source license slathered over it, anyone who does receive it > > (in-house) is completely legally free to post it to the