Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:22:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>>Here we go again. Are these "you will use *my* court" terms acceptable
>>or not? :-/
Not, in my opinion.
> It also has a bogus "breathing, eating or talking means you agree to
> this" clause, and it's annoyingly lon
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-06 20:21:39 +0100 Matthew Garrett
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Lawyers have told people that releasing images of their trademarks under
>> a free license would potentially harm their trademarks. [...]
>
> If asked a suitable question, I expect some lawyers to say that
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>>I don't really think that trademarks fit with the spirit of free
>>>software (despite it being possible to use them), and I'd raise
>>>serious questions about why they're trying to use them at all. Raising
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:22:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Here we go again. Are these "you will use *my* court" terms acceptable
> or not? :-/
It also has a bogus "breathing, eating or talking means you agree to
this" clause, and it's annoyingly long for a free license.
If there aren't any probl
On 2004-07-06 20:21:39 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] things like the desert island test are excessive.
Excessive in what way? Yes, it's an extra concept, but it's usually
easier to explain than "does not follow DFSG 1, 3, 5, 6 and/or 7, for
a significant number of d
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > I don't really think that trademarks fit with the spirit of free
> > software (despite it being possible to use them), and I'd raise
> > serious questions about why they're trying to use them at all. Raising
> > artificial barriers
On 2004-07-07 00:19:57 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
posted:
FREE SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT CeCILL
First off, I was told again today that French has no direct equivalent
word for "software". "Logiciel" only means "program". I've no idea
what other words don't translate. Basical
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>* Lucas Nussbaum:
>>>IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
>>>GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
>>
>>It looks like a fallback close similar to th
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>For example, "Abiword" is a trademarked name; Abisource requires that
>>modified versions of Abiword are either called "Abiword Personal", or
>>that they don't have "Abiword" in the name. This is a perfectly
>>reasona
Hi guys,
Last year I posted an analysis in two parts[1][2] of the then-draft version
of the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). In December, Frank Küster
asked what the status of the LPPL was[3], and I told him I didn't know[4].
Well, that same month, the LaTeX Project folks finalized the licen
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, "Abiword" is a trademarked name; Abisource requires that
> modified versions of Abiword are either called "Abiword Personal", or
> that they don't have "Abiword" in the name. This is a perfectly
> reasonable application of a trademark to Fr
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 17:18, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Section 4a) allows the author to forbid reference to the user. Section
> 4b) requires authorship credit.
s/the user/themselves/
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wikitravel (http://wikitravel.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This
Andrew Suffield wrote:
>Not much we can do about that, if true. Sounds like the old "free
>software destroys intellectual property" noise.
For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, people still listen to us.
If we can provide a semi-convincing argument that trademarks don't need
copyright pro
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:21:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>What do you mean by "solid legal argument"? Do we need to find a
>>>lawyer to check my reasoning?
>>
>>Lawyers have told people that releasing images of their trademarks under
>>a free license would potent
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 05:18:44PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Section 4a) allows the author to forbid reference to the user. Section
> 4b) requires authorship credit.
>
> If the author uses the revocation clause, it's not explicitly stated
> that the licensee is absolved of the requirements in
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum:
>
> > IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
> > GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
>
> It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My french is
>
* Lucas Nussbaum:
> IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
> GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My french is
rusty, though, I shouldn't try to interpret contracts. 8->
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 15:47, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-06 20:15:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > included the three main arguments why Attribution 2.0 is non-free
>
> At least in this context, we should say instead that software released
> under it alone will not be free
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:21:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >What do you mean by "solid legal argument"? Do we need to find a
> >lawyer to check my reasoning?
>
> Lawyers have told people that releasing images of their trademarks under
> a free license would potentially harm their trademar
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 03:15:25PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
> measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner
> inconsistent
MJ Ray writes:
> As such, if a copyright permission condition is an "everything is
> forbidden except X" trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates
> other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe
> the trademark: it would mean we have no copyright permissions on t
Hi,
The CEA[1], the CNRS[2] and the INRIA[3] have released a GPL-compatible
free software license. It seems to me that it is an very important move
: the CNRS and the INRIA are the two research institutes doing research
in computing. I know INRIA has distributed ocaml, mldonkey(!), and
scilab, and
Also, note that at least Australia and England extend copyright protection
to "industrious collections" (i.e., 'sweat of the brow' databases such as
white pages). See, e.g.,
in Australia - Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation
Limited
(http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.
On 2004-07-06 20:15:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
included the three main arguments why Attribution 2.0 is non-free
At least in this context, we should say instead that software released
under it alone will not be free software. It usually doesn't make
sense to say a lic
MJ Ray wrote:
>Surely the opinions of any large group will include extremes? The
>larger the group, the more likely that some will be relatively
>extreme. I think this is just a symptom of people being unused to
>seeing a project try to harness a large public participation.
Sorry, that wasn't
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:15, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
> licenses:
So, I've started this summary,
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.sxw
(and, yes, I'll convert it to HTML and plain text ASAP), and I've
included th
I'm not really familiar with debian's release management, as has been
pointed out to me with the strange effects of GR votes, so I'll only
cover the debian-legal aspects. Please reply to debian-legal alone,
asking for cc if you need it.
On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROT
> Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I
> call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me,
Can we give it up? We've had at least a year of discussion on this
subject, then a vote, then long flame-wars all over the place, then
another vote, since peo
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 09:23, tom wrote:
> My doubt is: dfsg should cover the 4 freedom of fsf.
I think this is a non-issue. The DFSG is the DFSG, nothing more or less.
> How does CC respect the availability of source code?
The licenses neither enforce nor prevent a licensee's distribution of
so
On 7/6/2004, "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My doubt is: dfsg should cover the 4 freedom of fsf. How does CC respect the
>availability of source code?
>I mean FDL does something like that with the provision of a copy in an open
>format when you distribute a certenly amount of copies.
>Can we
Hi all,
My understanding is that the last known patent on LZW compression held
by Unisys, in Canada, expires tomorrow, July 7th 2004. I plan to ask my
sponsor, Bas Zoetekouw, to upload a version of cernlib with compressed
GIF creation support added back in soon afterwards. (This may be
delayed s
Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com
:-))-:
* Matthew Palmer:
>> Wrong for Germany. Our analogue of copyright law does cover
>> databases.
>
> Mechanical compilations, as well as those requiring creative effort?
Mechanical compilations as well. Of course, most of our codified
moral rights don't apply to them. 8-)
Sorry, but the email address to which you have sent a message is
no longer in use.
To contact NewsNow, please visit our web site at:
http://www.NewsNow.co.uk/contact/
Best regards,
The NewsNow Team
NewsNow Publishing Limited
Tel: +44 (0)20 7471 0400
34 matches
Mail list logo
