On 12/10/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, does a "Published by anonymous" statement "crearly and legibly
identify you as the publisher" ?
I really doubt...
Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is possible.
As for pseudonymous publication (which is something differ
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:47:32 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
> > I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
>
> As you might expect from
> my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#gen
Gervase Markham wrote:
> But the names aren't required to be trademarked.
That sentence is nonsense in legal terms: there is no such thing as
"trademarking a name". A name becomes a trademark when you use it as
one. Putting it in a list of reserved font names is one way of doing that.
I think you
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:02:55 +0800 Gervase Markham wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Actually, DFSG#4 states, in part:
> >
> > | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
> > | version number from the original software.
> >
> > This means that forbidding derived w
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:11:11 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Is this kind of /cumulative/ name-change requirement allowed by
> > DFSG#4?
>
> We need copyright permission for each contributing work, so I can't
> see how we allow DFSG4 and not allow t
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hence, even if it's not a DFSG-freeness issue, I would suggest the
license drafter(s) to drop such a useless restriction.
It's been tried several times, and it's not happening. See the OFL list
for a recent explanation of the rationale. If it's not a freeness issue,
let'
6 matches
Mail list logo
