> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
> >> own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
> >> web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't get to
> >> require a copyright no
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
>> own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
>> web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't g
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 12:13:06AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
> > own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
> > web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't get to
> > require a co
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 08:59:53AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > "I think a web-based message board clearly reads commands
> > > interactively. So, if there is such a notice, you can't remove it. But
> > > you could alter its form, so long as it is still appropria
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
> own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
> web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't get to
> require a copyright notice on *every*
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > "I think a web-based message board clearly reads commands
> > interactively. So, if there is such a notice, you can't remove it. But
> > you could alter its form, so long as it is still appropriate."
>
> > I guess this case is difficult, since you could interpret ea
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:06:38PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
> > > buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
> > buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
> > bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that
>
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
> buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
> bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that
> this is not a new restriction to the GPL?
There
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
> buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
> bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that
> this is not a new restriction
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
> buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
> bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that
> this is not a new restriction
I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that
this is not a new restriction to the GPL?
I see that phpnuke is still in main in testing and unstabl
12 matches
Mail list logo
