Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>How about something vaguely like:
>>
>>"""
>>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
>>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
>>to that party, you must either:
>
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says
> "obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the
> license.
That isn't a problem in and of itself; it often indicates the presence
of non-free usage restriction terms, but no such te
benelux
---
H-G-H stimulates an increase in the production of H-G-H.
http://secretly.topbol.com
Clinical results based on trials show the following amazing results**:
88% muscle mass enhancement
84% higher energy levels
81-83% expanded exercise tolerance/endurance
81% increased muscle mass
To whom it may concern; I am a writer/columnist and occasionally send out a mass mailing of my work to varius news organizations around the country. I do not consider this spam, do you? In your message to me, you mentioned that my computer may be " compromised" and that a "hidden proxy server" is n
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 07:53:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2004, at 09:26, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> >But the human who expresses a beautiful and elegant idea of loops
> >*does* have a copyright on that, even if he writes it into a program
> >to produce customized lo
On Jul 21, 2004, at 09:26, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But the human who expresses a beautiful and elegant idea of loops
*does* have a copyright on that, even if he writes it into a program
to produce customized loops.
Not likely. The type of loops generated by a compiler are not really
crea
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> > like to keep it.
>
> I'm sure that anyone would
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-07-24 12:13:08 +0100 "Parsons, Drew"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > After debian-legal goes to all the trouble of determining whether some
> > licence is free or not, it would be useful for their decision to be
> > displayed, so others can easily se
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> like to keep it.
I'm sure that anyone would love to have that kind of term in a
license. It still feels non-free to m
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:39:06PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Also the first modification, well, i am not overly confident that it is
> > really
> > needed, and i am sure my wording of it are abysmal, and i ask for some help
> > here in finding some nice and concise wordi
Ok, let's rename this thread so people can see it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 01:32:08AM +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:26:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:05:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004
11 matches
Mail list logo
