On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 01:34:53AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> Hence, I don't know what the lawyers are looking for, but a license that
> grants too few permissions is not OK to me, even if it does so in a
> legally perfect manner.
>
It seems to me that you are looking at this as a sort of "
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:35:51 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/09/07 02:10, MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
> > Care to explain?
>
> Sure. Let me start with this general background premise:
>
> The creative commons is a group that is an ally to Debian and the free
> software movement.
This may or may not be t
Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 12/18/06 09:02, MJ Ray wrote:
> > If the label is not on the outside of the CD or otherwise used in the
> > course of trade by the distributor, how is the trademark infringed by
> > the distributor?
>
> That's not how things work in my experience. You are respons
Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/09/07 02:10, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Hardly. CC fans seem to see nothing wrong with discriminating against any
> > field of endeavour, such as commerce or technical protection.
>
> I wonder if that's an accurate description of the position of the
> Creative
On 01/09/07 09:43, Joe Smith wrote:
> I did express concerns that the image may still have copyright
> problems if it was taken directly from Windows, rather than being
> recreated.
OK, I understand your concern now. In my experience & understanding,
copyright law trumps either case.
> Even if
On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
> "CC in any form"?!?
> Even CC licenses with ND and/or NC elements?!?
>
> I really doubt the DFSG were written with the intentions of forbidding
> modifications (see DFSG#3) or commercial use (see DFSG#6).
> Are we talking of the *same* DFSG?
Yes I think
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:08:19PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/08/07 18:43, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 09:02:02PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
> >> That's good, I'm not convinced that CC in any form isn't DFSG. :)
> >> It seems to me the CC is written with the same kind of
On 12/18/06 09:02, MJ Ray wrote:
> If the label is not on the outside of the CD or otherwise used in the
> course of trade by the distributor, how is the trademark infringed by
> the distributor?
That's not how things work in my experience. You are responsible for
everything on the CD. It has not
"Jeff Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/21/06 13:53, Joe Smith wrote:
That's probably considered fair use for the purpose of which it was
intended. I'd guess Microsoft is unlikely to complain. In any case,
you should ask the tkchooser authors about it and
On 12/21/06 08:18, Gervase Markham wrote:
> I admit this is a bit stretched, but I find it hard to understand how we
> come to a position where Debian can label anything it likes with any
> trademarks it likes in its distribution, as long as it doesn't write the
> trademarks on the outside of the
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:02:02 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/05/07 16:43, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Mmmmh, I'm not convinced about the DFSG-freeness of
> > CC-by-sa-2.5/scotland either...
>
> That's good, I'm not convinced that CC in any form isn't DFSG. :)
> It seems to me the CC is written
On 01/09/07 02:10, MJ Ray wrote:
> Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> It seems to me the CC is written with the same kind of mentality and
>> intentions that the DFSG was written. [...]
>
> Hardly. CC fans seem to see nothing wrong with discriminating against any
> field of endeavour,
Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> It seems to me the CC is written with the same kind of mentality and
> intentions that the DFSG was written. [...]
Hardly. CC fans seem to see nothing wrong with discriminating against any
field of endeavour, such as commerce or technical protection.
13 matches
Mail list logo
