On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:12:19PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:05:10AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I don't know about others, but my notion of "software freedom" does
> > include the freedom to compile and use source code.
>
> So you think it's appropriate to excise
Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm trying to grok the last paragraph of Henning Makholm's
> comments in your first reference at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199906/msg00218.html
Good luck. :-)
As my recent comments in the present thread may have indicated, I'
On 2003-11-15 04:14:44 + Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It only revokes the patent license, not the whole license. Since
Debian, to a large extent, only concerns itself with patents that are
being enforced, it was considered fine [1]. There was even a comment
praising the patent
On 2003-11-14 14:57:58 + Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What prevents me, after violating the license, from obtaining a new
copy
of the software and using (copying, modifying, distributing) that
instead?
As long as you've stopped the attempt, have not distributed any
infringing
Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> I'm quite sure we have cryptographic software in main that is
> patent-encumbered and illegal for other reasons in many non-US countries
> worldwide. Isn't this exactly the same thing? It's been rehashed many
> times.
What's worse, GIF and JPEG are now essentially in
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
> >> >
> >> >> And, as it happens, companies do gran
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:05:10AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I don't know about others, but my notion of "software freedom" does
> include the freedom to compile and use source code.
So you think it's appropriate to excise code entirely, thereby removing
the freedom of people who are outsid
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
>> >
>> >> And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
>> >> common practice when work
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:32:09AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think people are a lot more savvy about patent-related problems now
> than they were 4 years ago, but it would be a pain to fix this now if
> we got it wrong.
[...]
> I find it interesting that copyright licences that try to enforce
> p
[I am not subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 02:07:06PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Given the number of times Debian has violated our original Apache
> license by redistributing modified versions of Apache httpd as if
> they were the original, but actually containing secur
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 02:38:02AM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> As a result, it is not necessary to remove the source code from the tar
> ball. But rather simply to ensure it is not compiled and used in the
> resulting binary. A simple conditional compilation flag (e.g. #ifndef
> NOLZW) would be suf
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:12:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> There's the difference that it takes explicit action and quite a bit
> of money to acquire and keep holding a patent. Going through that
> trouble just to grant the public a perpetual, non-exclusive,
> worldwide, fully paid-up and r
13 matches
Mail list logo