On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Not true. Governments can (and have) passed legislation to yank a work
> out of the public domain and put it back under copyright.
Anthony DeRobertis wrote in response:
> Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act
No; the MMCEA (or whatever the re
On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but maybe I can
scare one up.
Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act
(I'm pretty sure it caused some works to briefly be in the public
domain)
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not true. Governments can (and have) passed legislation to yank a work
> out of the public domain and put it back under copyright.
This happened when they extended the duration of copyright in the EU
from 50 to 70 years. (To remember when this happened, it
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 08:41:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> This is another permission grant, and is actually rather silly. If it's
> in the public domain, it can have no license. Ever.
Not true. Governments can (and have) passed legislation to yank a work
out of the public domain and
On Feb 25, 2004, at 16:46, Hubert Chan wrote:
If I wish to delete this paragraph, what is the best way to do this?
Should I say in the copyright file something to the effect of, "the
original hashcash package is released under the CPL, which is available
From ..., but the Debian package is relea
On Feb 25, 2004, at 17:54, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Licensing
The CPL is not a license, it does not require the user to do or not
do anything; the user does not agree to any terms, because there are
no terms, and the user does not need to do anythi
* Hubert Chan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [This program] is in the public domain. The original upstream source is
> released under the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL), which places the
> program in the public domain, and includes additional clarifying text.
> Neither Debian, nor Sof
yone think of the following statement in the
copyright file?
[This program] is in the public domain. The original upstream source is
released under the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL), which places the
program in the public domain, and includes additional clarifying text.
Neither Debian, nor So
(excuse the duplication - I forgot to reply to the list.)
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Scripsit Nic Suzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or
> > help to sue for any reason, where the result would be that the use,
> > modifi
Scripsit Nic Suzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or
> help to sue for any reason, where the result would be that the use,
> modification or redistribution of the work would be restricted.
Yes, but it *also* states that a distributor can chose
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> First, I cannot imagine any situation where Debian would even
> *consider* suing anybody over anything they do to software that we
> simply distribute. On the contrary, the whole point of the Social
> Contract and the DFSG is to promise users that we t
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 08:41:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >Licensing
> >The CPL is not a license, it does not require the user to do or not do
> >anything
They don't seem to know what the word "license" means. Perhaps we can
all chip in and buy them a dictionary! :)
--
Chris Water
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Licensing
> > The CPL is not a license, it does not require the user to do or not
> > do anything; the user does not agree to any terms, because there are
> > no terms, and the user does not need to do anything to indicate
> > acceptance or rejec
Thanks for your analysis, Anthony.
> "Anthony" == Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anthony> On Feb 24, 2004, at 16:02, Hubert Chan wrote:
>>
Hubert> [1] http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL
Anthony> Please paste license texts inline.
OK. Will do that in the future.
[...]
CPL> Non
On Feb 24, 2004, at 16:02, Hubert Chan wrote:
[1] http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL
Please paste license texts inline.
Here we go:
Cypherpunks anti-License
Intent
The intent of the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) is to inform users
that they are free to use and redistribute the indicated
> "John" == John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Since it explicitly grants the right to relicense, it's really
John> irrelevant. If you don't like the license, substitute any or no
John> license.
Yes. The license also says that programs released under the CPL are in
the public domai
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Hubert Chan wrote:
>I have created a package for hashcash, which is released under the
>Cypherpunks anti-License[1]. A potential sponsor (as I am not a DD yet)
>has some questions about the license -- in particular the "Non
>Litigation" section. I was
I have created a package for hashcash, which is released under the
Cypherpunks anti-License[1]. A potential sponsor (as I am not a DD yet)
has some questions about the license -- in particular the "Non
Litigation" section. I was wondering if you folks could give your
opinion on this se
18 matches
Mail list logo
