On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:42:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So in brief, there is no basis in law for the statement that "(c) is
> > not valid as a notice of copyright".
>
> Sure there is. The law says that the following are the only
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So in brief, there is no basis in law for the statement that "(c) is
> not valid as a notice of copyright".
Sure there is. The law says that the following are the only valid
things:
C in a circle
The word "Copyright".
The abbreviation "Copr."
The l
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:12:28PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So more to the point: there are many many references which say
> "c-in-parens doesn't count"
None of which are legally significant.
> there is a reference which says what does
> count, and it doesn't include c-in-parens, and
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > That's a nonofficial source. But a brief web search will show you
> > that the same thing is repeated a gillion times.
>
> Everything I've read so far has claimed that (c) has no force of law,
> wher
[NB: I'm subscribed... don't need to be CC'ed.]
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> In general, such claims don't work, because of the whole point of the
> statement: to have a single, unambiguous, bright-line test for what
> is a valid copyright notice, so that no interpretation, g
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> That's a nonofficial source. But a brief web search will show you
> that the same thing is repeated a gillion times.
Everything I've read so far has claimed that (c) has no force of law,
whereas c-in-a-circle does. However, I'm unaware of a court
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:28:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The "(c)" version does *not* count as a C-in-a-circle,
> > so it's just meaningless extra stuff.
>
> Precedent and jurisdiction, please.
A trivial web search brought up:
http:/
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:28:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The "(c)" version does *not* count as a C-in-a-circle,
> so it's just meaningless extra stuff.
Precedent and jurisdiction, please.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
> > > agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
> > > it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention
Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
> > agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
> > it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that
> > previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I h
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up
>> to them.
>
> Don't you mean copyright holders instead of authors? Last I knew, GCC
> work required you to assign copyright to FSF, so I expect t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Is the an implied copyright notification (I.e. "code added by person")
> >> sufficient in the debian/copyright or is it necessary to say
>
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up
> to them.
Don't you mean copyright holders instead of authors? Last I knew, GCC
work required you to assign copyright to FSF, so I expect the manual
is the same.
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether
>he is also autocratic, that is, "a dictatorial ruler", I don't know
>because I am not a member of the FSF.
As a GCC
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 08:06:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op zo 20-07-2003, om 13:06 schreef Andrew Suffield:
> > A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the
> > monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage.
>
> Well, seen the fact that RMS has
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:45:19PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > From the perspective of the freedom the two projects
> > > protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly...
> > Er... what?
> DFSG #1, "Free redistribution"
> - free as freedom, what GNU cares about too
Scripsit Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> DFSG #1, "Free redistribution"
> - free as freedom, what GNU cares about too
> - free as beer, what GNU does not care about (but it's
> frequently a consequence of the first freedom)
> The French translation of the DFSG is even mo
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:57:17PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> The way a project is managed/directed may only be an issue for people
> involved, in they can continue this project with another direction. In
> the GCC case, to name it, you're completely free to continue the
> project without RMS - bu
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether
> >he is also autocratic, that is, "a dictatorial ruler", I don't know
> >because I am not a member of the FSF.
>
> As a GCC develope
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Brian Calson said:
> >I realize (and this is a gross
> >generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger
> ties >to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free
> than >those that have stronger ties to Debian.
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
> > From the perspective of the freedom the two projects
> > protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly...
>
> Er... what?
DFSG #1, "Free redistribution"
Brian Calson said:
>I realize (and this is a gross
>generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger ties
>to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than
>those that have stronger ties to Debian.
This may be true overall, but my sense is that among GCC de
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether
>he is also autocratic, that is, "a dictatorial ruler", I don't know
>because I am not a member of the FSF.
As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly.
--Nathanael
Thomas Hood claimed:
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter
section of the Document that deals exclusively with the
relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document
to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters)
and contains nothin
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> From the perspective of the freedom the two projects
> protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly...
Er... what?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpSq4ulv3x4C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Title: ai fammi sognare
ai fammi sognare, ancora un po'
leggermente ho tanta troppa voglia, non posso aspettare Succhiami così
leggermente ancora ... ancora di più ... di più
Mi sento umida
Toccami!
Mmmhh...dai fammi sognare, ancora un po' leggermente ho tanta troppa voglia, non
po
26 matches
Mail list logo
