On 12/18/09, Ben Finney wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan writes:
>
>> On 12/18/09, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an
>> > owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different
>> > monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make th
Andrew Donnellan writes:
> On 12/18/09, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an
> > owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different
> > monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of
> > a monopoly the “owner”
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an
> owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different monopoly
> right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of a monopoly
> the “owner” in a property sense.
>
> IANAL, but i
Francesco Poli writes:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:00:48 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>
> > If it's copyright, it's proprietary.
> >
> > "proprietary" == "property". If it's copyright, it has an owner,
> > therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary.
>
> Your reasoning does not seem in
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:00:48 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <20091216233823.af491478@firenze.linux.it>, Francesco
> Poli writes
> >> The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is
> >> used?
> >
> >Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of proprietar
Hi,
We are very proud to enter phase two in IdeasForChange.tv, our ambitious
project building a platform that will become an active tool to improve our
world. We do this by collecting ideas and connect them to the right problem. We
do this to give you better tools to connect and build projects
Hi Anthony!
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:34:27 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
>>In section 10 (GPLv3):
>>
>>10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
>>
>>Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
>> receives a license from the original licensors, to run, m
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:06:41 +0100 Andrew Dalke wrote:
[...]
> The best counter example
> is the GFDL->Creative Commons relicensing, when the original GFDL's
> license grant is essentially identical to the GPLs.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your statement about the presumed
"essential iden
Andrew Dalke wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL
> > would have helped avoid this confusion. (Line wraps would help too.)
>
> Since my first post, of which I think you are talking about, also
> included the book title and author na
Olá ,
Este programa não permite a visualização de mensagens formatadas (com cores,
imagens e links), portanto solicitamos que você copie o texto abaixo, e cole no
campo "Endereço" do seu navegador.
http://app.aknaemkt.com.br/emkt/tracer/?1,212575,0f31d39a,49c8
Para garantir que nossas mensagens
In message <20091217024135.af5a9f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
writes
Andrew Dalke wrote:
On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think
>it is, then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that
>the au
11 matches
Mail list logo
