On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 10:38:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> "Copyright: GPL" is wrong. GPL is the license;
Yeah, I already pled no-contest to that brain fart.
> the debian/copyright file needs to list the copyright,
> which is a statement of the copyright *holder* and the
> year it was wri
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:24:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate his own
> copyright. Therefore, he does not if he adds code not distributable
> under the GPL. Unless the license of the non-GPL code prohibits this
> combination, everything is ok fo
John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
> GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under
> the GPL.
Actually, the later is not completly true.
The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 04:09:06AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 09:28:28AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > OTOH this debian/copyright is clearly deficient in many ways, but stop
> > accusing him of bad faith, you're just out of your mind.
> Thanks Pierre, you've just saved us al
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 05:39:06PM +, Ron wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 09:28:28AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > OTOH this debian/copyright is clearly deficient in many ways, but stop
> > accusing him of bad faith, you're just out of your mind.
>
> Thanks Pierre, you've just saved us
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 09:28:28AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> OTOH this debian/copyright is clearly deficient in many ways, but stop
> accusing him of bad faith, you're just out of your mind.
Thanks Pierre, you've just saved us all from my response to jeff's
wild slander from the hip.
Ther
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 01:45:24PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071117 23:55]:
> > In addition, according to other posters in this thread the term
> > "Urheberrecht" is better translated as "author's rights".
>
> I think the only usefull general translation is
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
--cut--
> For software, one way to get there would be to create a very buggy
> version of cdrtools and pretend it was all Joerg's original work.
An interesting question is how to stipulate in the terms of german legislation
that the derived wor
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:22:41 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
[...]
> For software, one way to get there would be to create a very buggy
> version of cdrtools and pretend it was all Joerg's original work.
"Buggy" is opinable. E.g.: Mr. Schilling claims cdrkit is highly buggy
and that cdrtools is
* Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071117 23:55]:
> In addition, according to other posters in this thread the term
> "Urheberrecht" is better translated as "author's rights".
I think the only usefull general translation is "copyright law", because
that is what a native of an English speaking count
Steve Langasek wrote:
> This description isn't sufficient for me to understand when this right would
> be infringed. I mean, to me the name of Joerg Schilling carries the
> connotation of "loudmouthed pompous hack who believes his code is perfect in
> defiance of reality", and the quality I associ
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 07:01:05AM +, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> severity 451647 serious
> thanks
>
> Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> >Today I've filed a bugreport http://bugs.debian.org/451647 against
> >wacom-tools package. Its copyright file imho violates the policy (I
> >think I can cite it here si
12 matches
Mail list logo
