--r-e-k-l-a-m-a-
OnetPoczta: duża, szybka, bezpieczna!
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:49:58AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> So, a "natural right" is whatever is considered a right according to
> whatever happen to be the morals of the dominant society of the age,
> whereas the other type of right is whatever is considered a right
> (or convenient, or profi
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:49:58AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> So, a "natural right" is whatever is considered a right according to
> whatever happen to be the morals of the dominant society of the age,
> whereas the other type of right is whatever is considered a right
> (or convenient, or profi
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:37:31PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I think I can give a useful example here: the ancient Greeks and
> Romans also kept slaves. Doing so was acceptable according to
> their culture and laws, but we still think it was wrong.
> The difference is precisely that we con
2003-02-02, v keltezéssel Fabian Fagerholm ezt írta:
> On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 16:30, Csillag Kristóf wrote:
> > Maybe some of us could use G.723.1 for free (without breaking the law),
> > after all.
>
> Perhaps it would be possible to convince MicroTelco to support a free
> codec?
Well...I will try
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 03:44:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:30:38AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > Euclid lived and worked in a Greek culture, under Greek laws.
> > The apostles lived and wrote in predominantly Greek cultures, under
> > Roman Laws.
>
> I thi
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 07:41:15PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> At this point, I looked back at the original email, and I can't see
> what you're suggest copyright is, if not a right... Neither 'privelege'
> nor 'responsibility' seemed to appear in your email, and those are the
> words I immediatel
You guys have been following up to both lists, when both the headers and
body of the original message in this thread explicitly requested to
followups to -legal only. Please stop ignoring this.
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:13:13PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:34:13AM -060
[Folloups were set to -legal only; please don't ignore that.]
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:30:38AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > Now, then, do
> > you think Euclid held a co
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:03:02AM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > The Universal Declaration of Human
> > Rights[0], adopted by the United Nations in 1948, lists many other
> > rights commonly thought of as "natural rights" or "civil rights"
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 02:48:04AM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughtful essay. Since you're "pulling an RMS" you might
> reconsider using the term "intellectual property" in the context of
> combining disparate areas of law (like patents and copyrights). You could
> have
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:20:51PM +1300, Philip Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Brandon's arguments are based on the reasoning of the Founding Fathers
Whose arguments?
> > when they first put together US. Copyright was given by the government
> > to the artist
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:21:26PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> A nice collection of arguments, but I'm really uncertain why you're posting
> it here. Isn't this kind of "preaching to the choir"? Or did I miss
> something so that the "cluebat" needs to be used on me? :-D
Grep your debian-devel
On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 16:30, Csillag Kristóf wrote:
> Maybe some of us could use G.723.1 for free (without breaking the law),
> after all.
Perhaps it would be possible to convince MicroTelco to support a free
codec?
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paniq.net
14 matches
Mail list logo
