Hi,
first of all, I'd like to point out that this topic is NOT a wesnoth
specific one. I have tried to bring up the point several times in the
past (even years ago), it was always sorta ignored, even though people
said that "yeah, surely the flattened images/music scores aren't source
nor pre
Hi!
* Josselin Mouette [2010-11-29 11:23:28 CET]:
> Le dimanche 28 novembre 2010 à 10:36 +0100, Alessandro Rubini a écrit :
> > Unfortunately, they may be right and in good faith.
> > This message confirms the swirl is just one of the defaults:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal
Hi!
On #debian-www "will" raised concerns that there might be issues with
respect to our logo license for including the debian lettering. It
doesn't contain a warranty waiver, and given that we publish svg images
which could contain potential harmful scripting (from will's
interpretation,
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-18 22:39]:
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> There is one last point that I really want to raise, though: I guess we
>> won't have to discuss that our very own beloved swirl logo has a
>> non-free licence.
>
> We ha
Hi!
Sorry, sent this to the wrong list
- Forwarded message from Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
* Anthony Towns [2006-01-18 11:01]:
> There are currently two proposals in discussion on debian-vote regarding
> a position statement on the GNU Free Documenta
Hi!
[please Cc: me on replies, I am not subscribed but read through the
archive]
I've found a quite strange thing in one of my moin installs, and I need
to get some more opinions on it before I write the RC bug against the
package.
It is a German license text, so people not able to un
Hi!
[Please Cc: me on replies, I'm not subscribed to this list -- OTOH I'll
watch the archive for answers anyway]
I wonder why the games "Beneath a Steel Sky" and "Flight of the Amazon
Queen" are in main. To me the license is quite clearly non-free, because
its for non-commercial use on
* Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-04 07:53]:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:09:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>>> I would say, we definitely need to relicense our website[1], then
>>
* Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-30 03:49]:
> I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy Hankins.
I would say, we definitely
* Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-16 09:21]:
> I think the page needs some information about it, roughly saying here
> the vendors are but they're not related do Debian and we dont endorse
> them or something. I don't want it to be too down as the majority of
> vendors are fine businesses
* Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-03 09:50]:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:46:52PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> * Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 18:46]:
>> > In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it
* "Brian T. Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 15:32]:
> Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 18:46]:
>>> In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it
>
* Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 18:46]:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a
>> violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimin
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 11:49]:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a
>> violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimin
Hi!
Someone raised an idea on IRC that I might see as valid:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups")? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite
against a OSL lice
* Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-28 20:03]:
> I haven't been seeing my mail on debian-legal lately, maybe I have
> some email troubles.. hopefully the CC will get through, though.
I received it at least.
> (Gerfried, if my email to debian-legal doesn't get there, would you
> k
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-28 02:10]:
> Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
> project's decision on this matter. This will help their psychological
> problem. ;-)
It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on that
topic i
Hi!
Any news on the case of the swirl they have in their logo? I can't see
any trace about this at all, the last question on this topic still
stands unanswered (from what I can see).
It looks like noone seems to care about this rip off at all and I don't
know where Sunnanvind Fenderson
On Sat, May 05, 2001, Sergio Brandano wrote:
> I am tired of all these messages!
> Stop posting!
Well, if you are tired of 'em, why keep you asking for 'em? *wonders*
> You have to understand that no person or institute
> owns your copyright if you do not transfer the
> ownership in writing via
On Sat, May 05, 2001, Sergio Brandano wrote:
> By law, there must be a legal agreement between the author and the
> publisher. If no such explicit agreement exists, then the author is
> still the owner of the copy-rights, and can decide what to do with
> that material, at any time.
You st
20 matches
Mail list logo
