Action Taken:
The attachment was quarantined from the message and replaced with
a text file informing the recipient of the action taken. The infected
attachment
has been placed in the designated quarantine folder.
Please exercise extreme caution when handling the quarantined attachment
To:
[EMAIL
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> 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
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:42:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:23:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
> > > in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra
> > > restrictions
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:22:46PM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote:
>> I am curious what the current status of the XMMS patent situation means
>> for Debian. I can find the following conversation that suggests
>> XMMS should be moved to non-free... and after
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:22:46PM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> I am curious what the current status of the XMMS patent situation means
> for Debian. I can find the following conversation that suggests
> XMMS should be moved to non-free... and after examination I agree. Why
> then is XMMS still in
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:23:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
> > in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra
> > restrictions.
>
> That's the "not quite" part. It's almost entirely irrelevant bec
I am curious what the current status of the XMMS patent situation means
for Debian. I can find the following conversation that suggests
XMMS should be moved to non-free... and after examination I agree. Why
then is XMMS still in main?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/09/msg00123.html
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of
> >> the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?
> >
> > No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues
> > with those licenses.
>
> I
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> >> Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
> >> >> suppose it might even be GPL compatibl
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >> Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
>> >> suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
>> >> frown upon the request for credit.
>>
On 2004-06-05 06:49:19 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think this license is actually legally nearly equivalent to giving
the
work to the public domain.
I believe that is the intention. For some reason, I can find very
little information on public domain grants in Englan
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
> >> suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
> >> frown upon the request for credit.
> >
> > Nobody here would do so, just so you know. :
On 2004-06-05 09:49:38 +0100 Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of
> the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?
No, they require specific advertising as a condition of permission. A simple
disjunct polite request for
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Måns Rullgård wrote:
Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
Nobody here would do so, just so yo
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> 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
Hello, I have a special_offer for you...
WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT?
The most powerful weightloss is now available
without prescription. All natural Adipren720
100% Money Back Guarantée!
- Lose up to 19% Total Body Weight.
- Up to 300% more Weight Loss while dieting.
- Loss of 20-35% abdominal Fat.
- Redu
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I'll have to retract my assertation that one has to accept the GPL
> before downloading a work covered by it. In most jurisdictions that I
> know of, people by default have the right to create copies of most
> copyrighted works for
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."
>
> "Ple
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 01:38:26AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode 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 se
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]. Currently the
> "license
Måns Rullgård wrote:
> 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 no
MJ Ray wrote:
> 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
Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> As for 6c, I am convinced by the arguments in
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
>>
>> which render its problems
24 matches
Mail list logo
