On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:28:24PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft
> summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes have
> been:
Thanks for doing this. I read it carefully and it's a very nice document.
I thin
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:38:19PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:10:41AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
> > > rest of the world i
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 8<8<8<8<8<8<8<8=
><
> This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
> unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
> modifications, as long as this
Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>>Snip "explanation" that does not do anything the idea that bits are
>>treated differently by copyright just becuase they are in a file
>>called .h.
> Repeating: bits that are in files called .h are not copied in your
> work,
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Trying to explain more: my "myfile.c" is not a derivative work on
>>> "errno.h",
>> No, but myfile.o may be. (I feel like I'm repeating myself here).
> My
8<8<8<8<8<8<8<8<
This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
>8>8>8>8
Hello,
I will not be reading my mail for a while.
Your mail regarding 'Mail Delivery (failure [EMAIL PROTECTED])' will be read
when I return.
--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:10:41AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
> > rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies
> > on the American n
Jarno Elonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This doesn't specify which parts were originally under which license but 1)
> it
> would be impossible anyway given that they're all mingled and 2) does it
> really matter as GPL insists licensing the whole bunch under GPL?
Yes, it does matter, as you a
> > Do you mean you don't know which bits have whose copyright? Yow!
>
> That's not particularly hard or unusual; just merge two people's code
> together and let it go through a year or two of refactoring.
Yes, this's the kind of scenario I was thinking of.
What do you think of the following form
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:55:40AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a de
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a derivative work
>> >> on another original work independently of what the comp
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:45:45PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> > If my implementation puts things in macros, and you distribute my
>> > implementation as part of your binaries as a result, that's *your*
>> > problem. I don't even know what you're t
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
> rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies
> on the American notion of "fair use" is non-free, because in the UK
> that means "Non-co
14 matches
Mail list logo
