Nous avons reçu votre message le 2004-12-08 , nous confirmons l'envoi
du mail à 7 personnes de votre choix. Nous vous avons attribué un chèque
hôtelier Eurorest, 14 nuits d'hôtel gratuites et votre ID de Participant
de l'Action: HW2B2-YDSR6
A ce jour, nous n'avons toujours pas reçu votre bon de c
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:09:25AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> The case is different here, as with most games, the 3d models are
> created by a artists who then sends the rendered images over to some
> programmer/maintainer who integrates them into the game, the
> programmer/maintainer almost never
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:11:19 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Merely running p2c on the code doesn't make it the preferred form for
> modification. I can't take your Pascal program, hack on it (in
> Pascal) for a while, compile and release it, and only offer converted
> C code, calling it "source".
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:06:45PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
>> So deleting the source makes it ok to distribute binary-only?
>
> That's not at all what I said.
>
> Since no one has cared enough about these 3d models -- to the point that
> they apparently
> >> a) declare that the images as they are are 'enough' to be considered
> >>'prefered form of modification' and leave it as it is
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the 3d models were available, I imagine they'd be the preferred form
> > for modification.
> >
> > Since they're
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:21:30PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> I disagree that you, as a non-copyright holder for my original Pascal
> program, can unilaterally declare that distributing obfuscated (i.e.
> non-Pascal) works satisfies your responsibilities under the GPL.
>
> For your work, yes, the C
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> a) declare that the images as they are are 'enough' to be considered
>>'prefered form of modification' and leave it as it is
>
> If the 3d models were available, I imagine they'd be the preferred form
> for modification.
>
> Since they're not availabl
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-14
20:55]:
> Definition as well as the DFSG and have asked for out input. When we
> originally started the discussion, the license had not been published
> so I asked Don Armstrong and Matthew Garrett privately to comment on
In September, I was approached by an important research institute in
Germany about a new software license, d-fsl. They are interested in
making sure that the license conforms with both the Open Source
Definition as well as the DFSG and have asked for out input. When we
originally started the disc
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:47:07PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Well, lets make it practical. netPanzer is in both Debian testing and
> unstable, it is full of sprites which are based on 3d models, the 3d
> models files itself however are not distributed with it and most likly
> never will be since
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In essence you're saying that "It's impractical to make this
> free".
Yes, because neither the tools nor the general workflow of creating
artwork ensure that something worth to consider source stays available.
> Whether true or not, that's *all* you'
Sehr geehrte Kundin, sehr geehrter Kunde,
Mit dieser E-Mail erhalten Sie Ihre aktuelle Telekom-Rechnung und -soweit von
Ihnen beauftragt- die
Einzelverbindungsьbersicht.
Nutzen Sie auch unter www.telekom.de/rechnung die vielfдltigen Mцglichkeiten
von Rechnung Online, wie z.B. Sortierungs- und
A
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
>> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred
>>> form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need
>>> to distribute both to comply with the
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
>> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is
>> that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
>> s
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred
>> form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need
>> to distribute both to comply with the GPL.
>
> No. You do not need to distribute so
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
>> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is
>> that C code, now that I've converted
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is
> that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
> storage never
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:00:52AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The GPL merely makes it obvious that your problem is hard. "Don't do
> > that, then" is not a reasonable answer to the problem of making your
> > images free. It's not free unless other
>Not really. That licence doesn't allow Debian to distribute whatever
>it is that's being licenced. There's only permission for personal use.
Hmm. My initial reading was that "you" could
(1) "create, test and provide" programs for use with ALTEON network cards
(2) "license the object code" of s
>Is this helpful
>http://web.archive.org/web/2711071330/sanjose.alteon.com/license-agree.shtml
Yes, it certainly is!
Thank you for finding this. :-)
It's not a free software license, but it looks like it may be a license which
allows distribution in non-free. :-)
20 matches
Mail list logo
