On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:48:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If there's an option to choose between either paragraph 3 and paragraph
> 4, this means you can effectively ignore paragraph 3 entirely if the
> Program is coupled with code under another license. So, to check whether
> or not the l
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 04:47:21PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 03:33:24PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I uploaded today a version of centericq with support for last msn
> >
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 04:21:40PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> On 2003-10-23, M??ns Rullg??rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> I believe courts have drawn a legal distinction between products or
> >> code that has a reasonable legal purpose and c
O Xoves, 23 de Outubro de 2003 ás 15:50:38 +, Dylan Thurston escribía:
> clause 3 vs. clause 4 issue: such a license is a grant of permission,
> and if I grant you permission to do X if Y, and also grant permission
> to do X if Z, then if you do either Y or Z, then you can do X. If one
Last
On 2003-10-23, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I believe courts have drawn a legal distinction between products or
>> code that has a reasonable legal purpose and code that has no such
>> legal purpose.
>
> In the case of MSN, would it be
O Xoves, 23 de Outubro de 2003 ás 11:10:13 +0100, Colin Percival escribía:
> 1. You may do X
> 2. You may do Y
> 3. You may do Z
> means "you may take any, all, or none, of the actions X,Y,Z"; likewise,
> clauses 2, 3, and 4 each provide alternatives -- you may take actions
> permitted under a
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe courts have drawn a legal distinction between products or
> code that has a reasonable legal purpose and code that has no such
> legal purpose.
In the case of MSN, would it be legal to run a private server, using
the MSN9 protocol? Or is the
On 2003-10-23 16:50:38 +0100 Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
For instance, take the GPL: Clause 1 grants permission to distribute
verbatim copies, which is obviously not free enough for Debian; it's
only Clause 3 that grants you permission to distribute modified
copies. The situation s
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I also don't think the original license was at all ambiguous in the
> clause 3 vs. clause 4 issue: such a license is a grant of permission,
> and if I grant you permission to do X if Y, and also grant permission
> to do X if Z, then if you do either Y o
On 2003-10-23, Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (The fact that end users might use the software for something illegal is
> irrelevant to whether or not it can be included in Debian. One can use
> mixmaster for industrial espionage, john to brute-force UNIX password files
> for the purpo
On 2003-10-23, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please add your clarifications to your licence text. Assertions here
> may not be taken into consideration. I'm not sure what current opinion
> is about legal validity of unsigned emails to a public list.
Hmm? debian-legal has frequently accept
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> [1] Components in a certain older DEC monitor can be made to actually catch
> fire if the monitor is driven at frequencies outside of its design
> range. On systems so equipped, one can use xvidtune to remotely start a
> fire.
And on the
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 03:33:24PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I uploaded today a version of centericq with support for last msn
> > protocol
> > (MSN9). I received a question from upstream author, he do n
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 03:33:24PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I uploaded today a version of centericq with support for last msn
> protocol
> (MSN9). I received a question from upstream author, he do not want to
> include this patch in official release for the moment because
Hello,
I uploaded today a version of centericq with support for last msn
protocol
(MSN9). I received a question from upstream author, he do not want to include
this patch in official release for the moment because he do not know if this
is legal.
Does someone know if this MSN
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How am I (mis)representing anything as being a work "from BSD"?
>> What is "BSD", anyway, as a legal entity? (AFAIK, BSD inc. no
>> longer exists.)
>
> I suggest that it is reasonable to expect that "BSD Protection
> License" would create the impression of
On 2003-10-23 13:33:30 +0100 Colin Percival
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I *hope* that nobody is going to read that as requiring that any
redistributor have a name which both starts, and does not start, with
the
letter "A".
I believe the consensus view here is that absurd licences are inval
At 13:01 23/10/2003 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-10-23 11:10:13 +0100 Colin Percival
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. You may do X
2. You may do Y
3. You may do Z
means "you may take any, all, or none, of the actions X,Y,Z";
likewise, clauses 2, 3, and 4 each provide alternatives -- you may take
On 2003-10-23 11:10:13 +0100 Colin Percival
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Licenses *grant* the authority to take certain actions; they do not
*restrict* one's ability to take actions. I hope you'll agree that
I am aware of this. However, I think that we do not have the ability
to distribute de
At 10:38 23/10/2003 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I am assuming from this that you wish a CC to be sent to you, although you
have not requested one.
Thanks. On the lists I normally frequent, it is normal to CC replies
(especially if there is reason to think that the person for whom the
response is
Op wo 22-10-2003, om 21:46 schreef Adam Majer:
> Hi,
>
> Could anyone tell me if the "BSD Protection License" can be used
> for main?
>
> It can be found at:
>
>http://people.debian.org/~adamm/LICENSE
There have been numerous people explaining that this license seems
non-DFSG-free, and I co
On 2003-10-23 07:47:30 +0100 Colin Percival
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This email might break the thread again -- because I'm replying to
an email
which wasn't sent to me, by copying and pasting out of the list
archives.
I am assuming from this that you wish a CC to be sent to you, although
[NB: If you wish to be Cc:'ed please set an appropriate
Mail-Followup-To: header.]
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Colin Percival wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>No. Licenses are interpreted by judges and/or juries.
>
> Judges and/or juries, who are assumed to be reasonable.
There's a
Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>My MUA is fine; the thread was broken by the fact that I was
>replied to an email Adam sent me, and I CCed my reply to
>debian-legal.
It's considered impolite to reply in public to private mail.
>This email might break the thread again
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Whatever MUA you're using (Eudora for windows?) breaks threads.
Kindly consider using a MUA that adds In-Reply-To: and References:
headers.]
My MUA is fine; the thread was broken by the fact that I was replied to
an email Adam sent me, and I CCed m
[Whatever MUA you're using (Eudora for windows?) breaks threads.
Kindly consider using a MUA that adds In-Reply-To: and References:
headers.]
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Colin Percival wrote:
> People read licenses in strange ways. Nobody seems concerned by the
> fact that paragraphs 2 and 3 cannot be s
At 21:33 22/10/2003 -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
I have asked on Debian-legal whether the "BSD Protection License" can
be considered free, and this is the reply I got:
> It does not appear possible to
> meet 3c and 4c simultaneously and there is no real indication that you
> mustn't meet both. There
27 matches
Mail list logo
