On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:27:35 -0500 Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
[...]
> Remember, the airwaves are a public resource. While I agree with you
> that you should have the right to do with your equipment as you see
> fit in general, this conflict with my rights to enjoy a public
> resource and to use eq
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:34:32 -0500 Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>
>
>> Francesco Poli wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>> "We would really love to be more permissive, but we cannot, 'cause
>>> that other evil guy forbids us."
>>>
>>> As I keep reading answers like this, I'm les
On 3/10/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That is my point: if they want to forbid some possible modifications
(just because those modifications would break some law) by retaining
source code and/or by license restrictions, they have a non-free goal!
The only reasonable justification
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:08:28 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 3/9/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Intel should be able to sell easily-reprogrammable WiFi cards: if
> > *I* modify one card and exceed regulatory limits, I should be seen
> > as the *sole* responsible.
>
> Wh
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Julien Cristau escribe:
> > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
>
> Why exactly!?
See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I
think the same problems apply to 2.5).
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Julien Cristau escribe:
> CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
Why exactly!?
pgpQT25CqkVgT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 08:34:30 +0100, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
> Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at
> dogmazic.net.
>
CC-* before 3.0 are non-free, CC-by 3.0 is probably ok, IIRC.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
7 matches
Mail list logo
