On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 16:30, Csillag Kristóf wrote:
> Maybe some of us could use G.723.1 for free (without breaking the law),
> after all.
Perhaps it would be possible to convince MicroTelco to support a free
codec?
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paniq.net
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:21:26PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> A nice collection of arguments, but I'm really uncertain why you're posting
> it here. Isn't this kind of "preaching to the choir"? Or did I miss
> something so that the "cluebat" needs to be used on me? :-D
Grep your debian-devel
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:20:51PM +1300, Philip Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Brandon's arguments are based on the reasoning of the Founding Fathers
Whose arguments?
> > when they first put together US. Copyright was given by the government
> > to the artist
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 02:48:04AM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughtful essay. Since you're "pulling an RMS" you might
> reconsider using the term "intellectual property" in the context of
> combining disparate areas of law (like patents and copyrights). You could
> have
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:03:02AM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > The Universal Declaration of Human
> > Rights[0], adopted by the United Nations in 1948, lists many other
> > rights commonly thought of as "natural rights" or "civil rights"
You guys have been following up to both lists, when both the headers and
body of the original message in this thread explicitly requested to
followups to -legal only. Please stop ignoring this.
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:13:13PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:34:13AM -060
[Folloups were set to -legal only; please don't ignore that.]
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:30:38AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > Now, then, do
> > you think Euclid held a co
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 07:41:15PM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> At this point, I looked back at the original email, and I can't see
> what you're suggest copyright is, if not a right... Neither 'privelege'
> nor 'responsibility' seemed to appear in your email, and those are the
> words I immediatel
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 03:44:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:30:38AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > Euclid lived and worked in a Greek culture, under Greek laws.
> > The apostles lived and wrote in predominantly Greek cultures, under
> > Roman Laws.
>
> I thi
2003-02-02, v keltezéssel Fabian Fagerholm ezt írta:
> On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 16:30, Csillag Kristóf wrote:
> > Maybe some of us could use G.723.1 for free (without breaking the law),
> > after all.
>
> Perhaps it would be possible to convince MicroTelco to support a free
> codec?
Well...I will try
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:37:31PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I think I can give a useful example here: the ancient Greeks and
> Romans also kept slaves. Doing so was acceptable according to
> their culture and laws, but we still think it was wrong.
> The difference is precisely that we con
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:49:58AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> So, a "natural right" is whatever is considered a right according to
> whatever happen to be the morals of the dominant society of the age,
> whereas the other type of right is whatever is considered a right
> (or convenient, or profi
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:49:58AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> So, a "natural right" is whatever is considered a right according to
> whatever happen to be the morals of the dominant society of the age,
> whereas the other type of right is whatever is considered a right
> (or convenient, or profi
--r-e-k-l-a-m-a-
OnetPoczta: duża, szybka, bezpieczna!
14 matches
Mail list logo
