Please contact your system administrator.
Violation Information:
The attachment your_document.pif contained the virus [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
could NOT be repaired.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:24:09PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 30/03/2004 22:48 : wrote Walter Landry :
>
> >Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>at this point, I have to ask /why/ is CSS code banned? DMCA?
> >
> >
> >The legal status of CSS is still under active litigation. Debian
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:29:22PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Um, sorry for temporarily misplacing my temper here. I see now that I
> have indeed expressed myself ambguously. I originally wrote something
> like
>
> Before we begin a clean-room reimplementation, we should ask
> Apple
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:06:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Huh ? If it would be licenced under the MIT/X11 licence, there is no
> need for the source code for us to distribute it ?
I was figuring we'd just disassemble it and call that the source code.
As long as that's true in practice for us
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 08:22:02PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The spec has been reverse engineered. The code is then created from
> the spec. That seems to break the copyright link enough. It
> certainly seemed to work for Compaq when they reverse engineered the
> PC bios.
I'm drifting off-t
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:00:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Notice that it is very probable that Apple will probably in this case not
> assert copyright on this bit of obsolet code.
That's not the way I'd bet. U.S. corporations tend to jealously guard
everything they possibly can, and grasp fo
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @ 30/03/2004 22:48 : wrote Walter Landry :
>
> > Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>at this point, I have to ask /why/ is CSS code banned? DMCA?
> >
> >
> > The legal status of CSS is still under active litigation. Debian just
> > has to be
Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The problem with clean-room implementations is not so much producing
> > them as debugging and testing them enough to be reasonably sure that
> > they will work in *all* computers that were built to accept the
> > original. If
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The issue is not whether it's right or wrong. It's more fundamental than
> that. The DFSG were originally designed for software; if they are to be
> extended to apply to works that are mainly about expression rather than
> function, you risk bumping up against the
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:30:56PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> In my personal opinion, the "moral rights" idea is very disturbing.
>> I know it has its defenders, ...
>
> The issue is not whether it's right or wrong. It's more fundamental
> than that. T
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:30:56PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> In my personal opinion, the "moral rights" idea is very disturbing. I
> know it has its defenders, ...
The issue is not whether it's right or wrong. It's more fundamental than
that. The DFSG were originally designed for software;
@ 30/03/2004 22:48 : wrote Walter Landry :
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
at this point, I have to ask /why/ is CSS code banned? DMCA?
The legal status of CSS is still under active litigation. Debian just
has to be conservative until it has resolved itself.
I don't know. What i
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If the code is as small and simple as described, clean-room
implementation should take about as much time as getting a reply from
Apple
The problem with clean-room implementations is not so much producing
them as debugging an
Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Read my lips: I am *not* talking about "a *functionally* identical
> > result" or "clean rooms". I am talking about a deliberate (and quick)
> > reconstruction of assembler source for the excat bits that Apple has a
> > copyri
Valdis.Kletnieks writes:
> In fact, I was going to suggest that quite possibly, there really *is* no
> other option for source, because the target hardware doesn't have a
> functional enough toolchain...
One uses a cross-compiler or cross-assembler.
> ...so hand-assembly really *is* the most reas
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I thin you don't understand which kind of reverse engineering I'm
> talking about. I'm afraid I am not able to be any clearer without
> repeating myself.
Um, sorry for temporarily misplacing my temper here. I see now that I
have indeed expressed myse
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:13:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > If the thing that is being reverse-engineered is covered by copyright,
> > > and the reverse-engineering follo
Henning Makholm wrote:
I don't think your understanding of reverse-engineering is applicable in
the U.S.
I thin you don't understand which kind of reverse engineering I'm
talking about. I'm afraid I am not able to be any clearer without
repeating myself.
Read my lips: I am *not* talking abou
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:40:33PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It's not the "reverse engineering" that needs permission; it's
> > the "distribute derived code".
> If it's independently created, it's not derived.
It's not, in the scenario I am
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > If the thing that is being reverse-engineered is covered by copyright,
> > and the reverse-engineering follows it tightly enough that the result
> > is a derivate of the original th
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 03:17:42AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:56:25AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:26:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > You don't need permission to reverse-engineer anything.
> > >
> > > If we're going to talk to
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 03:15:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:03:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:10:36PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:05:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hacker #2 affirms
Cher(e) internaute,
Nous avons bien reçu le courrier électronique que vous nous avez envoyé.
Nous recevons actuellement beaucoup de demandes par mail, aussi nous vous
remercions de votre patience si la réponse à votre question tardait à vous
parvenir.
Vous allez recevoir bientôt un second accusé
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:53:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > > Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplem
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:56:25AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:26:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You don't need permission to reverse-engineer anything.
> >
> > If we're going to talk to Apple, we should ask them to release the boot
> > sector and anything else
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:40:33PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > There's absolutely no point even implying that we need their permission
> > to reverse engineer anything,
>
> If we are going to distribute code that has been derived by reverse
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:03:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 01:10:36PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:05:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > Hacker #2 affirms that he has never looked at the existing boot
> > > sector, and will not do
27 matches
Mail list logo
