On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:59:14PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing
> to do this work?
This has nothing to do with "making me happy". I only raised the issue;
it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem. Sorry, but I'm
not w
On 2004-06-04 22:36:57 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In this case, we're probably best off asking for a clarification from
the
author. (I don't even use Kerberos, so I'm not up to doing that.)
This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing
to do this
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >I'm not saying the originating region matters;
>
> It does somewhat when trying to figure out what a clause is intended to
> mean. If we saw something like that in a US-based licensor's license,
> we can be pretty sure it i
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright
> assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO,
> sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the
> cop
On Jun 4, 2004, at 15:55, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
everyone lives in the US.
You're right, this is isn't the M
On Jun 4, 2004, at 13:53, Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
"I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me
to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accep
On Jun 3, 2004, at 20:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter
where you consider the copy to be "made", *I* am the one who is
causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that
particular time and place.
So then the ser
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> >Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
> >everyone lives in the US.
>
> You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
I'm no
On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
everyone lives in the US.
You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:53:29AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
> >
> > "I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
> > link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
> > No warranty
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
"I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted."
"Please link to this
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> [...] I just want to know if there is a list of
>> common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
>> DFSG
>> free.
>
> I'm not sure about definitive, but genera
MJ Ray wrote:
> Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
>
> "I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
> link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
> No warranty offered and no liability accepted."
"Please link to this site" seems non-
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences
would work for any so
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:15:50AM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
> If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk
> about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing.
> Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to
> change the wording of the last sentence into on
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If I make photocopies of a book and put them on a shelf with a "Free!"
> sign, and you then take a copy, I'm the one who made the copy available,
> and the one needing permission from the copyright holder.
The thing that needs permission is not making
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthieu Delahaye) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
> author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
> respecting Debian policies.
>
> The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Current
Hi,
I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
respecting Debian policies.
The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
"license" is not usable to be uploaded under Debian.
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040602 16:42]:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
> GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some
> computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
> computers, legally speaking, do
G E TY O U R U N I V E R S I T Y D I P L O M A
Do you want a prosperous future, increased earning power more money and the
respect of all?
Call this number: 1 775 490 9881 (24 hours)
There are no required tests, classes, books, or interviews!
Get a Bachelors, Masters, MBA, GED
20 matches
Mail list logo
