Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I apologize if I have not been able to spend more time answering your
> mails here (it is starting to get boring after a few years), I promise I
> will do better in the future.
Please, don't bother unless you can post something justified, instead of
basele
On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though.
You didn't find any "final answer"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00161.html and the
>reduction in mdgrams until now, for example.
Or maybe the fact that in that period I changed my job, home and city.
I apologize if I have not been able to spend more time answering your
mails here (it
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:40:05 -0500 Joe Smith wrote:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
>
> I tried to include the text, but had trouble getting it to degrade
> nicely.
Here's the complete text, for future reference, obtained with
$ w3m -cols 70 -dump \
http://creativecommo
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:42:49 +0100 Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
> Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would
> like to map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in
> Debian.
I really appreciate that you thought about this aspect *before* doing
all the work (that is t
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
I tried to include the text, but had trouble getting it to degrade nicely.
This message will have general comments about the licence mixed in with DFSG
freeness concerns.
Unless I explicitly mention a comment as being a freeness-concern i
On 3/5/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:23:40AM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> So, from the lawyer's perspective, it is a matter of client-attorney
> privilege. SPI now has to make the decision that full disclosure to the
> public via d-l is worth the
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:23:40AM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> So, from the lawyer's perspective, it is a matter of client-attorney
> privilege. SPI now has to make the decision that full disclosure to the
> public via d-l is worth the potential risk of losing that protection. My
> guess w
On Monday 05 March 2007 05:17:50 am Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:10:33PM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> > On 2/28/07, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >to summarize the situation here. SPI's attorney has asked that his
> > >messages not be posted to public mai
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:10:33PM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 2/28/07, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >to summarize the situation here. SPI's attorney has asked that his
> >messages not be posted to public mailing lists for reasons of
> >attorney-client privilege.
>
> Please
On 2/28/07, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
to summarize the situation here. SPI's attorney has asked that his
messages not be posted to public mailing lists for reasons of
attorney-client privilege.
Please could you elaborate on whom this secrecy is intended to
protect, and in what w
Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would like to
map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in Debian.
So I red some threads but I didn't find any final answer, are CC 3.0[2] (and
which one?) and free art license okay with the DFSG[3]?
Regards etc.
[1] htt
12 matches
Mail list logo
