My questions are:
* does this suffice as a DFSG-free license? it seems that there's no
explicit permission to distribute (even if I suppose Larry meant to give
such a permission...)
The word use in relation to images implies distribution IMHO. For example if
I 'use' Tux in a pamplet, i am most
Hi everybody!
I found out that there are some packages in main that include a nice SVG
version of the famous Tux image.
At least sodipodi and inkscape do include it (or a slightly modified
version).
They are clearly derivative works of the original raster image created
by Larry Ewing <[EMAIL PROTE
El domingo, 25 de septiembre de 2005 a las 10:58:49 -0400, Joe Smith escribía:
> Is it just me or is it hard to sue a pseudonymous modifier, becaue their
> real identiy is not known?
Yes, but the pseudonymous modifier would have lost the license to
distribute the work, and anyone distributing t
"Henning Makholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All identifiers have scope; if the license doesn't specify, there's no
reason to think you can't use an identifier whose scope is limited to
your
involvement in the pro
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> All identifiers have scope; if the license doesn't specify, there's no
> reason to think you can't use an identifier whose scope is limited to your
> involvement in the project. :)
It's a reasonable interpretation. The problem is that there are
_other
5 matches
Mail list logo
