On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:12:28PM +0100, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> that's not why they taxed it - under polish law when your receive sth
> that you gain money with then you pay taxes for it.
> maybe lawyer should comment on this.
That's okay. I'm sure the Polish government will fall into line w
Mariusz Przygodzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 14 November 2000 00:26, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > so don't list it. just list "Debian CD$2". you don't need to
> > list the free license any more than you need to list "Air$0",
> > "Sunlight$0", "Birdsong.$0", or even "Traff
On Dienstag, 14. November 2000 00:26, Craig Sanders wrote:
> so don't list it. just list "Debian CD$2". you don't need to
> list the free license any more than you need to list "Air$0",
> "Sunlight$0", "Birdsong.$0", or even "Traffic Noise$0".
Hehe, best argument.
Mig-O
I thought it was hueys and Cobras...(reference: apocalypse now)
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:12:28PM +0100, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > that's not why they taxed it - under polish law when your receive sth
> > that you gain money with then you pay ta
** On Nov 13, Craig Sanders scribbled:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:45:51PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >err. debian CDs have a known market value, don't they? why not buy a
> > >debian CD for $2 or whatever they cost these days?
> > >
> > >add in the 30% tax and that's a total of $2.60 + p
** On Nov 13, Craig Sanders scribbled:
> > > the cost of the license.
> > I don't think it includes a cost of license. In few mails before I have
> > clarified it why.
>
> sure it does. the monetary cost of the license is zero dollars, which is
> clearly included in the price you paid for the CD
** On Nov 13, Mariusz Przygodzki scribbled:
> On Monday 13 November 2000 23:16, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > you will have a receipt for a software CD called Debian GNU/Linux.
> > that's what it cost you to buy it, including the cost of materials and
> > the cost of the license.
> I don't think it incl
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:57:20PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > you will have a receipt for a software CD called Debian GNU/Linux.
> > that's what it cost you to buy it, including the cost of materials
> > and the cost of the license.
> I'm wondering whether it could be proved that one had so
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> ** On Nov 13, Craig Sanders scribbled:
> > sure it does. the monetary cost of the license is zero dollars, which is
> > clearly included in the price you paid for the CD.
>
> It must be explicitly put somewhere - either in the distr
On Tue 14 Nov 2000, Marek Habersack wrote:
> >
> > fair enough. but you need to challenge their use of MS software
> > as a reference price. you can do that in at least two ways: a)
> > by establishing that gnu/linux is an entirely different type of
> Won't work. For them it's a Server Software f
On Wed 15 Nov 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
>
> > What's funny, is that when you run a shop and you play radio so that
> > customers can hear it - you should pay the same fee to ZAIKS what the
> > radio paid for broadcasting the songs
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 03:36:17PM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> The *same* fee? So if you operate a broadcasting station that can
> reach 10 million people, you pay the same amount as a shop that has
> standing capacity for 10 people?
no, i don't believe it's the exact same fee. i don't know what
Paul Slootman wrote:
> That's very similar to the Buma (http://www.buma.nl/uk/home.htm) here
> in the Netherlands. They also wanted to levy a surcharge on the sale of
> blank cdroms because as you can use them to duplicate audio cds, you
> *will*. Very nice if e.g. you're trying to distribute deb
** On Nov 14, Craig Sanders scribbled:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > ** On Nov 13, Craig Sanders scribbled:
> > > sure it does. the monetary cost of the license is zero dollars, which is
> > > clearly included in the price you paid for the CD.
> >
> > It mus
** On Nov 14, Paul Slootman scribbled:
> On Wed 15 Nov 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> >
> > > What's funny, is that when you run a shop and you play radio so that
> > > customers can hear it - you should pay the same fee to ZAIKS w
** On Nov 14, Craig Sanders scribbled:
[snip]
> > The *same* fee? So if you operate a broadcasting station that can
> > reach 10 million people, you pay the same amount as a shop that has
> > standing capacity for 10 people?
>
> no, i don't believe it's the exact same fee. i don't know what radio
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 04:44:27PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> [...]
> Heh, the world isn't sane :(((
It would be so nice if we could just
stty -F /dev/world sane
sorry, couldn't help it :)
adc
On Monday 13 November 2000 23:54, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > sure it does. the monetary cost of the license is zero dollars, which is
> > clearly included in the price you paid for the CD.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:20:25AM +0100, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> And this is a problem. Zero dollars as a
On Tuesday 14 November 2000 18:02, Raul Miller wrote:
> Debian CD: $2.00, licenses included.
>
> Do the tax officers have a problem with this?
No, if you show them a nice bit of paper (with signatures and stamps)
confirmed by a commercial invoice.
Mariusz
--
Mariusz Przygodzki| Good j
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:14:28AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > What's funny, is that when you run a shop and you play radio so that
> > customers can hear it - you should pay the same fee to ZAIKS what the
> > radio paid for bro
As part of an acquisition of my present employer by another company, I have
been asked to sign the enclosed agreement.
I am mostly worried about paragraph 2c, which, if read literally, seems to give
the company blanket rights over anything I do, _regardless_ (and this is my key
point) of whether t
basically what this says is: if you write code on company time, they own it not
you. They get copyright. So if you write a new program, you have to have your
boss' (or someone higher) to GPL, BSD, or otherwise license it because it is
NOT yours.
So, if you write code for the FSF, they require yo
I would be interested in the results of the license-debate.
long before I posted the ITP on -devel I had posted about the license to
-legal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0010/msg00018.html
I can understand that people are not interested in reading long legal
documents, that is why I am no
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:48:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I refused to sign a document like this at my current job, do not know how well
> that would do for you here. It depends on the people you work for.
Wow! You should have told me about that before I signed it :(.
pgpUaXRM2naSS
begin Ian Zimmerman quotation:
> 1/ Is my (literal) reading of the document essentially correct, or is
> my assumption that I can read English just so much hubris?
Your understanding matches mine. You are _very_ wise to be cautious
about what you sign.
> 2/ Will signing this agreement prevent
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:55:19AM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> I would be interested in the results of the license-debate.
>
> long before I posted the ITP on -devel I had posted about the license to
> -legal.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0010/msg00018.html
This doesn't satisfy DFS
26 matches
Mail list logo
