Le mercredi 30 mars 2005 à 22:42 +, MJ Ray a écrit :
> Can you give a reference for the discussion, please? The Jabber
> licence preamble appears to contradict the licence text and I'm
> not sure if they're significant. I didn't find matches for legal
> in the time around the Sep 2001 package l
Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point -at least for me- is to figure out if others agree.
> Some of the main opinion against this point are that dfsg are directed
> to software and cc are not.
I'm not familiar with Italian, but at least in some other languages,
this opinion has been motiv
I've been recently contacted by two people belonging to Creative Commons
Italy staff, regarding your draft summary.
Hi, I am one of those guys, thomas of curse
We began a three-party discussion (in italian): I was hoping to talk
about debian-legal's proposed license fixes, but, so far, our
convers
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote to the BitTorrent authors about the new license for version 4,
Thank you for doing that work.
[...]
> Their line of reasoning is that it such a clause is present in several
> other licenses: the APSL, RPSL, MPL and Jabber licenses. The APSL an
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, if we treat this as a freedom issue in situations where the
> licensor has created a new version that does not include the
> comment/bounding box and/or where we have reason to believe the
> licensor feels that this is in fact part of the license,
Mike Hommey wrote:
I don't know for jabber, but mozilla is tri-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL...
We don't need to fulfil the MPL.
Actually, it's not quite yet. That's what the licensing policy is for
new files, and it's what we are working towards for older files, but
there are a few files which aren't th
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:05:01PM +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Their line of reasoning is that it such a clause is present in several
> other licenses: the APSL, RPSL, MPL and Jabber licenses. The APSL and
> RPSL are non-free, so that's not a problem. IIRC, the MPL was sai
I wrote to the BitTorrent authors about the new license for version 4,
and finally received an answer from them. There were 2 issues with this
license:
1/ The choice of venue clause;
the authors would probably agree to remove it, only keeping the choice
of law, which is DFSG-free.
2/ The "keep so
> If the licensor includes that term in the copyright conditions for
> the work, I don't think that CC's opinion matters much, unless they
> are granting an unrestricted royalty-free trademark
> permission. After all, the copyright licensor could include
> something really daft like "you must not
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >No, but if it's included in the licence by a licensor who considers it
> >part of the licence, clearly your "we all know" is false.
> Then this licensor is using a different license which is not a CC
> license. It's not that hard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>No, but if it's included in the licence by a licensor who considers it
>part of the licence, clearly your "we all know" is false.
Then this licensor is using a different license which is not a CC
license. It's not that hard.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 03:53, Raul Miller wrote:
> Those .h files were held to be not protected by copyright because no
> viable alternatives were available to interface with the system.
>
> It's hard to see how this reasoning would apply in a context where there
> is some viable alternative av
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, well, now that the debate has entered into some strange parallel
> demension where facts no bare no relevance, I shall return to my lurker
> status on this list. Hope my comments were helpful to someone.
I think both yourself and Andrew Suffield a
13 matches
Mail list logo
