Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> On 2004-09-13 03:39:39 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer
>>> exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the date
>>> You commence an
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>>
I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but i
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-13 03:39:39 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer
>> exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the date
>> You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
Hi Lorenzo, Martin, lists,
Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro wrote:
:: Hi Martin,
:: El mar, 14-09-2004 a las 17:40, Martin Michlmayr escribió:
* Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2004-09-08 16:26]:
:: I want to know if i can use the trademark "Debian" on
:: th
Francesco Poli wrote:
> Hi all! :)
>
> I found a package in main that does not seem to comply with the DFSG.
> Moreover the copyright file seems inaccurate.
>
> I'm seeking help, as I would like to file a bugreport in the Right
> way(TM).
> What should I say in the bugreport?
What you wrote in
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:53:55PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This whole "consensus" nonsense is just an excuse to discard any
> argument without responding to it. Note how it is only ever advanced
> by people who want to discard valid arguments; it is never used by
> people who want to introd
(Moved from debian-project because it seems more appropriate here.)
MJ Ray writes:
> On 2004-09-14 19:32:58 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Both groups list significant numbers licenses as free that terminate
> > on patent litigation: [...]
>
> The OSI lists no licences as "f
* Andrew Suffield:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:42:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Andrew Suffield:
>>
>> > No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the
>> > same reasons.
>>
>> Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me.
>
> This (unstated) argument sa
Hi all! :)
I found a package in main that does not seem to comply with the DFSG.
Moreover the copyright file seems inaccurate.
I'm seeking help, as I would like to file a bugreport in the Right
way(TM).
What should I say in the bugreport?
The package I'm talking about is figlet: a small progr
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:42:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield:
>
> > No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the
> > same reasons.
>
> Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me.
This (unstated) argument says that nuclear disarmement is
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:50:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-14 11:40:06 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >>Using copyright as a defense against patents is fairly new
> >>and I've never seen a consensus o
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:18:30PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:40:06AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > This habit people have recently developed as dismissing any answers
> > they don't like by claiming "no consensus" is really fucking stupid.
>
> This habit people h
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 22:47, David Schleef wrote:
> Using team names (and especially team logos) is a good way to get
> to the pointy end of a lawsuit. The names and logos are almost
> certainly under trademark protection, and generally aggressively
> guarded, since licensing names and logo
* David Schleef:
> Names of people are (curiously) less protected.
Depends on the jurisdiction. If you use football player names in a
football game, you'll most likely get sued (because commercial game
developers have to pay $$$ to get licenses and the football
organizations don't want to lose t
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:18:46PM +0200, Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> Hi, I'm the maintainer of the bygfoot package.
>
> It is a football (soccer) simulator game, and currently it includes some
> "real
> player" names.
>
> I think this can be illegal (also team names?).
>
> I already have a versi
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:42:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield:
>
> > No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the
> > same reasons.
>
> Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me.
I suppose, if you were an American, you'd also be among th
> * Raul Miller:
> > I'm not even sure what "indirect support of software patents" means --
> > is anything other than outspoken criticism of software patents "indirect
> > support"?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:17:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> If you try to convince your fellow Debian develop
Hi Martin,
El mar, 14-09-2004 a las 17:40, Martin Michlmayr escribió:
> * Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-08 16:26]:
> > I want to know if i can use the trademark "Debian" on the name of a
> > project that i've started , "Debian Hardened" which i want to see as
> > an
Hi, I'm the maintainer of the bygfoot package.
It is a football (soccer) simulator game, and currently it includes some "real
player" names.
I think this can be illegal (also team names?).
I already have a version without player names ready to be uploaded, removing
team names should take a lit
* Raul Miller:
> I'm not even sure what "indirect support of software patents" means --
> is anything other than outspoken criticism of software patents "indirect
> support"?
If you try to convince your fellow Debian developers and upstream
developers to drop all defenses against software patents
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:42:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me.
This sentence disturbs me, for two reasons:
[1] It doesn't appear to be directed at any practical issue.
[2] It does appear to be directed at a person.
I'm not even sure what
* Andrew Suffield:
> No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the
> same reasons.
Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me.
I don't think I've seen anybody convincingly claim consensus -- I see
a lot of "but you don't have a consensus for that, so it can't be
true!" But most of the convincing arguments I see are by reason, not
by frantic pointing to authority.
Even the most hotly contested issues of the last few years
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:40:06AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This habit people have recently developed as dismissing any answers
> they don't like by claiming "no consensus" is really fucking stupid.
This habit people have recently developed as claiming their opinion as
"consensus" when it i
Hi Harald,
Is there some other "as free as public domain" license? I don't like
to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\
I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially
says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org,
and is well known
On 2004-09-14 11:40:06 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Using copyright as a defense against patents is fairly new
and I've never seen a consensus on the issue.
This habit people have recently developed as dismissing
* Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-08 16:26]:
> I want to know if i can use the trademark "Debian" on the name of a
> project that i've started , "Debian Hardened" which i want to see as
> an official Debian sup-project.
I personally feel that this name has the same pro
Please cc me, I'm not subscribed.
Hi!
I wonder if the following is a valid license, if it is found in a
tarball in some file LICENSE? Is it necessary to refer to this file
from every other file or is it's existance enough?
| You may deal with the stuff in this package in any way you want, the
|
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's clear
> > > that the OSI has
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:03:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> > Requiring that I change function names is completely non-free; this is
> > essentially says that a forked library must be both source and binary
> > incompatible.
>
> It's a borderline case. DFSG #4 nearly allows that. However, this
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>>> Ok, you're right -- while copyright law makes no specific provisions
>>> about how the copy arrives,...
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:27:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
>> That's plain wrong. Copyri
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> "c) rename any non-standard [-executables-] {+types and functions+}
>> so the names do not conflict with [-standard executables,-]
>> {+Standard Version,+} which must also be provided, and provide a
>> separate [-manual page-] {+documentation+} fo
Dear Sir,
From Daily DAWN I have come to know that there are some vacancies are lying under your kind control.I feel honor to offer my services. , Management & Marketing. My details are given in the C.V. attached.I trust that my request will meet with your consideration and looking forward to
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:20:08AM -0400, Brian M Hunt wrote:
> On September 13, 2004 11:28 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > You can sue Microsoft in any state in the Union, and probably most
> > countries in the world, without this clause, too. That's because
> > Microsoft no doubt does business
35 matches
Mail list logo
