Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> Paul is a pathetic poor excuse for a wannabe troll.
There is no doubt that if I had it to do all over again I would do it
better. I have publicly apologized. Now, I apologize to you
individually.
Perhaps you could walk a little in my shoes. I would like to know how
yo
Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>
> I have read your message a couple of times and I have yet to find
> one such "case in point"...
Maybe I'm missing your point, but there seems to be lots of talk about
the evil of RSA-style patents and the laws that allow them.
I'm not a big fan of the GPL. The shor
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:28:57PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> He's correct, the current part of the license in question is:
>
> 1) Any use of analog which is illegal under international or local law
>is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole
>responsibility of the person co
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 12:30:44AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> Perhaps you could walk a little in my shoes. I would like to know how
> you would reconcile the following:
>
> While maintaining "Crafty" a well-regarded chess engine, the author
> changed the license because many people were entering
This is my last message, I swear. I'm beginning to agree with
Joesph Carter here - this is a waste of time, and a bit scary
coming from a Debian developer.
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 01:48:00AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> So, that's the "case in point": Under the RSA example, the current
> legal regi
I am the upstream author of analog. Sorry for not contributing to this
discussion earlier. I just got back from holiday to find this forty-message
thread.
Contrary to what the filer of the original bug says, I did change this
clause after he contacted me before -- that's why it changed from (the
o
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 01:48:00AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > So, that's the "case in point": Under the RSA example, the current
> > legal regime, for all its imperfections, results in software and ideas
> > that are freer than what you would have unde
Samuel Hocevar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
>
> > Has anyone else noticed the irony that RSA now has fewer restrictions
> > than any software covered by the GPL?
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of your point, since
> RSA is an algorithm, not a softwa
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
> Samuel Hocevar wrote:
Next time I'd be glad if you didn't send my *private* E-mails to a
mailing list without asking me. I don't suppose debian-legal was set up
for your personal rants/trolls, and I have no intention to take part to
them. Oh, and , in
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 05:29:59AM -0700, Steve M Bibayoff wrote:
> Could you please define what "criminal laws" are, and where you found such
> a word and defintion.
Look up "tort" in a legal dictionary.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Men use thought only to justify their
Debian GNU/Lin
[my apologies for the private mail if you are subscribed to debian-legal]
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 07:30:05PM +0100, Stephen Turner wrote:
> The reason for this clause was that I was advised by a lawyer (albeit
> in an informal conversation) that I could be liable under UK law if a
> user used the
Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The tone of the FSF and the GPL is one of moral superiority. For
> example, look at http://www.fsf.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html where you
> can find the section entitled: "A stark moral choice."
Yes, it's entirely a moral issue according to the FSF. Other
Paul Serice wrote:
> It's easy for GPL supporters to say that software patents are one of
> the biggest threats to free software in the middle of the exclusionary
> period. It's like all the reports in the middle of summer complaining
> about global warming. I have never heard and probably neve
Do you understand that patent and copyright are two completely different
areas? In the "pure GNU GPL" world you describe, there would be no patents,
so the RSA algorithm would have been free from the beginning.
14 matches
Mail list logo
