On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 12:06 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Worse, the PDF description of the parallel distribution amendment appears
> to describe an amendment which is less restrictive than necessary for
> Debian's purposes (see comment 11). (Proper parallel distribution requires
> the unencumb
On Mon, 2006-25-09 at 09:47 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Indeed. I can't see how I can discuss things with Creative Commons when
> their official line is that they've decided I'm wrong for reasons they
> won't tell me. Classic Star Chamber politics.
We have no documentation on how parallel distributio
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:43:22 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> PS-Please fix your mutt and/or terminal config, as the subject line should
> read:
> public domain, take ∞
> not:
> public domain, take ?$B!g
Never mind, as it appears that UTF-8 interoperability between the Debian
mailing lists and
Nathanael Nerode writes:
>> Do you have any evidence to indicate that these byte streams contain
>> any copyrightable or otherwise protected content?
>
> They look creative to me. I certainly couldn't write them independently, on
> my own. Under modern copyright law, everything is copyrighted b
Le lundi 25 septembre 2006 à 17:14 -0400, Filipus Klutiero a écrit :
> Package: gnome-themes-extras
> Version: 0.9.0-5
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.2.1
>
> gnome-themes-extras's copyright file indicates that the package is under
> the GPL, but a non-GPL Firefox icon is included in
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:49:35 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 septembre 2006 à 23:32 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
> > Here, the restriction clearly forbids creating a derivative work
> > that is a drop-in replacement of the original, and thus interferes
> > with interoperabi
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:21:18 +1000 Nic Suzor wrote:
> Eric Lavarde - Debian [Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:52:43PM +0200]:
> > Hello again,
> >
> > Last tentative: what's wrong with my request that I don't get _any_
> > answer?
>
> You did get an answer - check message from Joe Smith [Thu Sep 14, 2006
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:47:37 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > The response is:
> > | There is no record of the reasons other than the reasons stated in
> > | my blog post of August 9, 2006
> > | (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017).
> >
> > Mmmmh,
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:01:51 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 9/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> > What about:
>> >
>> > The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
>>
>> A
On 9/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> What about:
>
> The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
As yet said on this list, this notion of (and the words) public domain
is not c
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:21:24 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
>> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
>> might have an
On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> What about:
>
> The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
As yet said on this list, this notion of (and the words) public domain
is not common to all countries and more where it exists it can be
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:06:28 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > And the response is:
> >
> > | This argument can certainly be made. CC does not feel that it, as
> > | license steward, should opine on the likelihood with which a court
> > | in any jurisdiction would u
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
> might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
> header:
Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
header:
#!bin/bash
#
# Let this be known to all concerned: It is the specific inte
Hallo,
It is my prayers that in any time in your life that you need help, God
Himself will come to your aid. I wish to invest in the manufacturing
and real estate business in your country. I have a substantial amount
which I would like to invest in this transaction and i would like you to assist
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 septembre 2006 à 23:32 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>> > Replacing the text by a 'this software cannot return
>> > "schily" because it would infringe on Jörg Schilling's trademark'
>> > notice - or no notice at all - would seem like a fine solution.
>>
Michael Poole wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode writes:
>
>> In the Linux kernel,
>> drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c
>>
>> contains *long* sequences which appear to have been lifted from some
>> other driver without permission or attribution, probably by
>> wire-sniffing.
>>
>> Not short sequences
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> In the Linux kernel,
> drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c
>
> contains *long* sequences which appear to have been lifted from some other
> driver without permission or attribution, probably by wire-sniffing.
>
> Not short sequences, really long ones.
>
> This is not ju
In the Linux kernel,
drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c
contains *long* sequences which appear to have been lifted from some other
driver without permission or attribution, probably by wire-sniffing.
Not short sequences, really long ones.
This is not just nondistributable, it's actually likely
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 12:20:59PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
>
> > Background:
> >
> > ECW is a prioprietary (patented) compressed image format quite used in
> > GIS applications. Ermapper recently released its SDK under a multi-license
> > here included.
>
Le dimanche 24 septembre 2006 à 23:32 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > Jörg Schilling interprets this restriction as implied by trademark law
> > in his country.
>
> I don't know whether his interpretation is a legally valid one (IANAL),
> even though I've heard of cases where courts prevented
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Did anyone read Creative Commons response to comments on CC-v3 draft(s)?
>
> A PDF file was sent to the cc-licenses mailing list and can be found
> here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004027.html
I have not yet read them. I h
23 matches
Mail list logo
