On Friday 31 January 2003 22:13, Paul Hampson wrote:
> To me a right (as compared to a privelege) is something you can do,
> and no-one can take that away from you.
This would make a persons's set of rights empty.
Lynn
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:34:13AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 07:41:15PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
>
> > > I'm saying that you seem to be confused by the word. You're analyzing
> > > its etymology and deriving its meaning and properties based on that.
> > > This is the
> "Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't want this discussion to drag on forever, going round
>> and round, covering the same ground, beating a dead horse, and
>> overusing cliches and stock phrases. I
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 14:51, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:30:34PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
> > it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
>
> Well... public domain in the USA.
Scripsit Craig P Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's an analysis package, analagous to Gnuplot. I don't think that
> it does any network stuff at all, so I don't think that security is
> an issue.
Security is always an issue. If it's found out, for example, that the
program has a buffer overflow
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the work is truly in the public domain, then this request has no legal
> force. It is not a license, because the author does not hold a copyright
> and has no authority to stop you from using it if you don't agree to
> these terms.
That's why I'm
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:30:34PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
> it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
Well... public domain in the USA. This has come up on debian-legal
before, but I can't find it no
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
> versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My
> question is this: if I were to obtain permission from the authors for
> Debian to distribute packaged binar
On 31-Jan-03, 10:17 (CST), Craig P Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having this package in Debian would be a tremendous asset.
I think that ROOT's license is acceptable for non-free. Whether
it's wise to add it is up to you, the maintainer, and the users. In
particular, if I were considerin
On 31-Jan-03, 03:24 (CST), Paolo Ariano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Il gio, 2003-01-30 alle 22:30, David Turner ha scritto:
> > The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
> > it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
>
> sorry for my ignorance but
Il ven, 2003-01-31 alle 16:36, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> If the work is truly in the public domain, then this request has no legal
> force. It is not a license, because the author does not hold a copyright
> and has no authority to stop you from using it if you don't agree to
> these terms.
ok
> Being unable to not fix security issues in a timely manner is a Bad
> Thing. We should not support, endorse or otherwise support such
> software. Not even in non-free (which is not part of Debian proper).
Just in case there's some confusion about the type of package, I believe "root"
is a C++
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:59:37PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> We in Debian need some clarifications about your current license
> for mod_ldap. We need minimally to move proftpd-ldap in non-free
> section when 1.2.7 will be uploaded. But this is not a problem of
> yours surely :). Your
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 04:30:40PM +0100, Paolo Ariano wrote:
> Il ven, 2003-01-31 alle 16:22, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> > Public domain means that *none* of the rights associated with copyright
> > are reserved. It can go in main.
> ok but the problem is that he asks for changes:
If the work
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 07:41:15PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > I'm saying that you seem to be confused by the word. You're analyzing
> > its etymology and deriving its meaning and properties based on that.
> > This is the wrong way to analyze a legal term. Instead, you should be
> > looking at
Il ven, 2003-01-31 alle 16:22, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> Public domain means that *none* of the rights associated with copyright
> are reserved. It can go in main.
ok but the problem is that he asks for changes:
/*
* ImageJ is open-source. You are free to do anything you want
* with this so
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:24:44AM +0100, Paolo Ariano wrote:
> Il gio, 2003-01-30 alle 22:30, David Turner ha scritto:
> > The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
> > it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
> sorry for my ignorance but therefo
Hi all
I'm cross-posting d-legal & mod_ldap author John Morrissey.
If someone would add something about this issue, please
add John in Cc.
John:
We in Debian need some clarifications about your current license
for mod_ldap. We need minimally to move proftpd-ldap in non-free
section when 1.2.7
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:03:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I disagree with the suggestion that the author could be made to
> realize this merly by mailing him the text of the GPL with a few
> passages underlined but no further explanation.
No argument there.
--
Glenn Maynard
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > > Send him a postcard with the appropriate GPL section
> > > > highlighted.
>
> > > Um, but what is th
Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>
> > Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
> > versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My
> > question is this: if I were to obtain permission fro
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:14:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> > > ^^
> > > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the ri
On Thu 30 Jan Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> BTW can you give some examples of licences, that explicitly say, that
> whole fscking name must be changed, not just version number? Does such
> beasts really exist?
http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt
> * 5. Products derived from this software may not be ca
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
> versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors. My
> question is this: if I were to obtain permission from the authors for
> Debian to distribute packaged binar
Il gio, 2003-01-30 alle 18:11, Mark Rafn ha scritto:
> > > ImageJ is in the public domain. You should change the name and the
> > > "About Box" (Help->About ImageJ) if you add a license.
>
> I'd modify the file that contains the above comment to include the fact
> that the author has since decla
Il gio, 2003-01-30 alle 22:30, David Turner ha scritto:
> The ImageJ website is at NIH, as is the author's email address. So,
> it's probably a US Government work, and therefore public domain.
sorry for my ignorance but therefore ? if it is in public domain i can
use it to pack for debian under a
Hi all,
I am interested in packaging the ROOT analysis software [1]. The license
is available here [2] and reads as follows:
- (start license)
The authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, and distribute this
software and its documentation for any purpose, provided that existing
copyr
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:09:31PM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Paul Hampson wrote:
>
> > Copyright Act 1968 Section 31:
> > http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s31.html
>
> I'm not at all sure that copyright works the same in all countries. I
> suppose the related intern
28 matches
Mail list logo
