On 15 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I may quote: "Any use of analog which is illegal under "
>
> You quote wrong. It says:
>
> | 1. Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> | forbidden by this licence.
Ok, then the licence is old. Take the new from analogs home p
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 03:56:20PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > > 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> > > forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole
> > > re
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, there is a point related to what Bernhard is saying.
>
> At least in the U.S., only a small, small fraction of the laws are
> criminal laws.
Could you please define what "criminal laws" are, and where you found such
a word and defintion.
Steve
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Actually, there is a point related to what Bernhard is saying.
> >
> > At least in the U.S., only a small, small fraction of the laws are
> > criminal laws.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 05:29:59AM -0700, Steve M Bibayoff wrote:
> Could you please define what
I just read my Debian Weekly News where it reports on RSA Encryption
being released into the public domain.
RSA has long been the GNU poster child of what is "wrong" with
software patents and copyright law in general.
Has anyone else noticed the irony that RSA now has fewer restrictions
than any
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 12:12:56PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> I just read my Debian Weekly News where it reports on RSA Encryption
> being released into the public domain.
>
> RSA has long been the GNU poster child of what is "wrong" with
> software patents and copyright law in general.
>
> Has
David Starner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 12:12:56PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > Has anyone else noticed the irony that RSA now has fewer restrictions
> > than any software covered by the GPL?
>
> Sigh. Do we have to start a gratitious flame war?
>
> . . .
>
> Honestly, you're comparing
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 02:14:01PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> The assumption I would like to revisit is that software patents or
> copyright laws lead to closed software.
If you consider that an assumption, you'd better start by defining what
you mean by "closed software".
> Perhaps this too is
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > You quote wrong. It says:
> >
> > | 1. Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> > | forbidden by this licence.
>
> Ok, then the licence is old. Take the new from analogs home page. There
> it is "Any use"
He's correct, the current part of the
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 12:18:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > I just read my Debian Weekly News where it reports on RSA Encryption
> > being released into the public domain.
> >
> > RSA has long been the GNU poster child of what is "wrong" with
> > software patents and copyright law in genera
> There is no need to defend your world. I understand that people
> disagree, and I'm not saying I'm right in any absolute sense. We
> don't need a flame war because I respect the other side of the
> argument. I just happen to disagree, and now I have a case in point.
I have read your message
11 matches
Mail list logo
