On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:13:40 +0200 Olive wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> > There are issues with certain devices (e.g. game consoles, some
> > media players) that will only play files in their proprietary
> > DRM-encumbered format. So, parallel distribution would give
> > recipients one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/16/07, Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But why someone will want to do that? To put DRM and at the same time to
provide someone with the possibility of bypassing them seems absurd.
Could you give a /realistic/ example of a comportment that you think
should be allow
On 9/16/07, Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why someone will want to do that? To put DRM and at the same time to
> provide someone with the possibility of bypassing them seems absurd.
> Could you give a /realistic/ example of a comportment that you think
> should be allowed and is neverthele
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:43:19 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:19:35PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:39:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
[...]
excellent explanation!
In other words, IIUC, this clause seems to try and limit the
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:43:19 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:19:35PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:39:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > > excellent explanation!
>
> > In other words, IIUC, this clause seems to try and limit the h
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:19:35PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:39:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> [...]
> > excellent explanation!
> In other words, IIUC, this clause seems to try and limit the harms done
> by some idiotic laws.
> The license would *not* be *less* re
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:39:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
[...]
> excellent explanation!
In other words, IIUC, this clause seems to try and limit the harms done
by some idiotic laws.
The license would *not* be *less* restrictive without this clause.
Is that correct?
--
http://frx.netsons.or
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> Actually, you could do like the FSF: fight the system by using their own
> methods. There is nothing that can stop Debian from registering as a
> rights society, and as such could become a society to collect these
> non-waivable fees on behalf of the (open-source) software a
Francesco Poli wrote:
> What is not clear to me is: if "Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes"
> are absurd things such as sort-of-taxes on virgin media (recordable CDs,
> DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about
> the right to collect royalties "for any exercise b
Francesco wrote:
> DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about
> the right to collect royalties "for any exercise by You of the rights
> granted under this License" ?
That refers to collecting societies that have both a legal monopoly,
and legal mandate to collect roya
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:06:12 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> > So it seems to me that CC does not make any more limitations or
> > restrictions then those that are already there in the law (e.g. the
> > restriction "you can only buy blank CDs and DVDs if you pay a fee").
> > S
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:06:12 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
[...]
> Francesco,
>
[one constructive answer to one of my concerns, at last!]
>
> So it seems to me that CC does not make any more limitations or
> restrictions then those that are already there in the law (e.g. the
> restriction "you can o
Francesco Poli wrote:
> Well, I made a detailed analysis of the issues I see in CC-by(-sa)-v3.0
> licenses.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
> Just saying that they are "in spirit the same as GPL" is *not* a
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
