On 2004-06-07 00:44:25 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] Although an interpretation of the clause with respect to US
copyright law says that the clause should only mean "we keep our
copyrights"
(which is a NOP),
An interpretation of the clause with respect to most forms o
On 2004-06-07 01:43:08 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see a license with a clause that both I and Henning [1] found
potentially
questionable, so I brought it to the attention of the rest of the
list.
Searching the list archive by that message-id brings no results, you
know?
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 01:32:44AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >You snapped at me for not being willing to do the footwork, despite
> >being willing to bring up a possible issue--which seemed to be saying
> >[crap]
>
> As far as I know, I have not spoken to you to "snap". If you infer
> that from my
On 2004-06-06 19:19:07 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You snapped at me for not being willing to do the footwork, despite
being willing to bring up a possible issue--which seemed to be saying
[crap]
As far as I know, I have not spoken to you to "snap". If you infer
that from
On 2004-06-06 23:37:16 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No reason. But that isn't necessarily what the clause in question
says. It
is ambiguous; it could be interpreted in one of several ways. One of
which
is OK, and another which is very not-OK.
I do not agree that "OpenVi
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 07:12:54PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:37:16AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > We have a licence
> > which (AFAIK) we've never seen before, with an ambiguous clause, and some of
> > us would like to take the diligent path and disambiguate it.
>
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:37:16AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> We've had cases previously where a licensor has interpreted a licence in
> common use as a DFSG-free licence in a non-free manner; can you give any
> solid reason why that could not be an issue in this case?
That can *always* be the
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 04:52:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >software, and I think it's the burden of people who actually care
> >about
> >the software to do the legwork to ensure that it's free.
>
> Sure, but I can't see why they shouldn't assert their (non-exclusive)
> copyright interest in deri
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 04:52:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-05 00:23:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem. Sorry, but I'm
> >not willing to ignore the DFSG so long as I don't use a particular
> >piece of
>
> No-one
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> I know what "please" means. What I fail to understand is what it is
> that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.
There's nothing terrible about asking for credit for your
work. There's something terribly wrong with requiring credit for y
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> > the reason you can copy a file
> > which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
> > because you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.
>
> I d
On 2004-06-05 00:23:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem. Sorry, but I'm
not willing to ignore the DFSG so long as I don't use a particular
piece of
No-one is ignoring the DFSG, so I don't know why you mentioned that.
softwa
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, 4 Jun 2004 11:46:51 +0200 Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * 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.[...]
>
> If you log on some computer and make a copy there and transmit it to
> you (like ssh
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
> the reason you can copy a file
> which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
> because you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.
I don't think so: you are not granted any right by a license, unless you
accept t
15 matches
Mail list logo
