"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What about modification and distribution?
>
> To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.'
Since, as investigation into copyright laws outside the US has found,
even
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:50:32 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> KWWU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > >Should we accept as free software a program under a
> > >licence which does
> > >not allow licensees to distribute compiled files?
> > >
> > >The correct way to fix this is for CC to require
> > >
On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about modification and distribution?
To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.'
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.ne
Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 15:37 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 15:02 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > > I think I agree with that. It's not subject to the firefox copyright,
> > > as far as I know, and it's an honest use of the trademark. If the
> > > icon is
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
> author(s) place no restrictions on this
Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 15:02 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > I think I agree with that. It's not subject to the firefox copyright,
> > as far as I know, and it's an honest use of the trademark. If the
> > icon is modified to refer to something else, then any bug may be
> > caused by the tr
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:56:16PM +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only issue here is a trademark one, but as the icon is used to
> > reference firefox itself, I'd have guessed it is allowed. I'm CCing
> > debian-legal, as this has been
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only issue here is a trademark one, but as the icon is used to
> reference firefox itself, I'd have guessed it is allowed. I'm CCing
> debian-legal, as this has been discussed to death and I guess someone
> will have more clues than myself.
I think
KWWU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Indeed. Sadly, CC's anti-TPM language may(*)
> >prohibit iSuck owners
> >applying TPM themselves, as the copy would violate
> >the licence and the
> >anti-TPM measure is not limited to distribution. [...]
>
> Isn't this a case of fair use?
Why would that be
On Sep 7, 2006, at 14:59, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
Background of question 3 is that someone on the list might have an
idea
which other license could be acceptable to Sun (and I might suggest
it to
the developer).
msv itself is under the new three-point BSD license plus a nuclear
faci
>Indeed. Sadly, CC's anti-TPM language may(*)
>prohibit iSuck owners
>applying TPM themselves, as the copy would violate
>the licence and the
>anti-TPM measure is not limited to distribution. (*
-
> it's not entirely
>clear to me, due to the recent comments and refusal
>to explain.)
Isn't this
Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 05:01 +0200, Øystein Gisnås a écrit :
> I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package
> libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns:
>
> * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link
> against bluez-libs, which is license
12 matches
Mail list logo
