Marco D'Itri wrote:
I do, and I stand by my opinion: the package license is intended to be
applied to everything, and pretending otherwise is useless pedantry.
Modern copyright law, unfortunately, demands pedantry. If you think it's
useless, that's your opinion, but as far as I can tell that'
M J Ray wrote:
"Joe Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] It has long been
held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a
cassette tape from a cd).
Maybe you've just worded this badly, or maybe you're relying on
some specific place's laws, but my private copying is su
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> If a person has no reason to think that something may possibly be illeagal
> then there is likely a severe problem with the law.
There are severe problems with copyright law. Doesn't change whether
or not you broke it.
> For example, if a law prohib
Dear potential Speaker:
Based on your explicit or implicit interest expressed in the past, on behalf of
the organizing committee, we would like to extend a cordial invitation for you
to submit a paper to the IPSI Transactions journal, or to attend one of the
upcoming multidisciplinary, interdis
- Original Message -
From: "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It is hard to
convict somebody for violating a law that they honestly have no reason to
belive they might have violated. [...]
Never heard the expression "ignorance is not a defence"? One
would still be found guilty, but penaltie
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Marco d'Itri writes:
>
>>> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
>>> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free.
>
>> Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that some might accuse
>> you of
Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Marco d'Itri writes:
>> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
>> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free.
> Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that some might accuse
> you of wanting to put non-free things in
Marco d'Itri writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in
>>licenses, however.
> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free.
Only for a strange definition o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is private modification safeguarded by the DFSG? I think so.
I don't.
>DFSG 1, 3 and 6 interaction.
Not really obvious.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in
>licenses, however.
Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are
plenty of "bad" licenses which are free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
On 9/20/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Harald Welte have successfully pursued
> > infringment claims against people who violate the GPL.
>
> Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (lawsuit
On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Harald Welte have successfully pursued
> infringment claims against people who violate the GPL.
Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (lawsuit).
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html
It's a Small Wel
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 10:31:30AM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
> It has come to my attention that released Linuxsampler versions up to
> the latest release 0.3.3 are licensed purely under the GPL. The
> "NON COMMERCIAL"-exception has been added to the cvs version and is
> reflected on the homepage
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 17 USC 106 (which 17 USC 117 references) subparagraph b, is rediculous.
1. that is all about US law. Debian is distributed many other places.
2. many people consider much copyright law ridiculous. Sadly, it's
still the law and does "the law is an ass" ever
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 22:37:31 -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> >This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under
> >17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an
> >essential step in the utilization of the program.
>
> Certainly if a program fails to do what you
15 matches
Mail list logo
