On Sat, 3 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The same (see above) point is not correct for political
>> speech. Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal
>> mode of operation and never was.
>Political speech has been around for
Don Armstrong wrote:
> The most recent discussion is at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01633.html
Thanks, I've read all the related threads. It occurs to me that there were
three issues brought up:
- marking the changes made on imported libraries. This would cu
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:56:26AM +0200, Gabucino wrote:
> - Sam Hocevar raised a concern about libavcodec. I do not intend to answer
>this, since xine was allowed into Debian with a full, included libavcodec.
Sorry, that doesn't work. If the library has problems, it has problems
regardless
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> >Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
>> >in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before
>> >1995 is not redistributable over the Internet.
>> Can you give me spme online Resources about it ?
>
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote:
> - marking the changes made on imported libraries. This would
>currently include: libfaad2, libmpflac, libmpdvdkit2, libmpeg2.
>Let me clarify the situation.
[SNIP -- These all seem to be packaging considerations and as such are
orthogonal to the lega
Fedor Zuev wrote:
> AFAIK, you are right in general, but there a small
> correction needed. I apologize, if you cite any official source, but
> all I read about this appears slightly otherwise. Copyright holder
> cannot grant "right for as yet unknown types of use", not the "right
> for dist
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Sorry, that doesn't work. If the library has problems, it has problems
> regardless of whether it was previously allowed into the archive or not.
Yes, someone here told you'd (all) be looking into xine's libavcodec issues.
More than a half year has passed, and nothing happen
Don Armstrong wrote:
> > d, libmpeg2 - We - the core developers - do not intend to waste
> > time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know
> > what exactly you wish for),
> All that's needed is to comply with GPL 2a [and probably for any other
> GPLed libraries which yo
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Of course, I don't know the details of any related patents (and don't
> wish to); I'm only going from what I've heard: TMPGEnc had MPEG-2 issues,
> MP3 encoding issues are well-known, and VirtualDub had ASF issues.
> (These are all issues of patents tha
On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 03:01 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
But copyright is not the [only] thing I said about. I said
not about copyright, but about normal mode of operation, which is
orthogonal to the copyright itself.
Have you seen Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> of
October 5,
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:59:22AM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
> As a result of KANOU's investigation, LABO123 32-dot font is same as the
> bitmap font (TYPEBANK Mincho M) that was developed by TYPEBANK Co.,
Are these all bitmap fonts, then?
In some countries (notably the US), copyright does not su
Bcc to Avery Lee (phaeron at virtualdub dot org); I don't want to stick
his address in the archives for harvesting without his permission.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > Of course, I don't know the details of any related patents (and don't
> > wish to); I'm only g
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 12:24:06PM +0200, Gabucino wrote:
> Yes, someone here told you'd (all) be looking into xine's libavcodec issues.
> More than a half year has passed, and nothing happened. So I continue to
> disregard this matter.
The only mention of libavcodec being in main that I've seen i
Here's Avery Lee's response:
"I do not know of an actual instance in which the ASF patent was
enforced. What happened was that I received a phone call from member
of the Windows Media team informing me that my ASF code was illegal,
despite being constructed from scratch via data reverse engineerin
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed.
> That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have
> fallen off the site.
There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all
happen on Win32 platform
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Huh? Why does xine use -DCONFIG_ENCODERS ? It can't even encode.
> Don't ask me, ask the maintainers of Xine.
I'd rather ask the .deb packager(s), because that is our current subject.
> > > Oops. Looks like Xine has ASF support elsewhere, which is a problem.
> > So? Is i
Gabucino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed.
>> That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have
>> fallen off the site.
> There is a significant part to these patent enforceme
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 20:53, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Gabucino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all
> > happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on
> > Linux
> > market, as far as I know.
>
> That's
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's
> patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at
> will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it
> wrong for someone to infringe on a patent which isn'
Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> > So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's
> > patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at
> > will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it
> > wrong
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:53:44PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Gabucino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >> One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly
> >> removed.
> >> That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:53:44PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all
> > happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on
> > Linux
> > market, as far as I know.
>
> That's irrelevant if they actuall
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:15:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> > So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's
> > patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at
> > will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and
[Billy: Sorry, meant for this to go to the list.]
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Billy Biggs wrote:
> Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> Well, it is actually illegal, [...]
>
> It would be really nice to have references for those of us who
> haven't taken an IP law course. I don't think this one is obv
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Last I'd heard, "knowing infringement" in the US required the
> complicity of a patent lawyer, since mere mortals are no longer
> deemed qualified to judge for themselves whether a given usage is
> infringing.
Yeah... that or being told by a patent hold
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:52:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Last I'd heard, "knowing infringement" in the US required the complicity
> of a patent lawyer, since mere mortals are no longer deemed qualified to
> judge for themselves whether a given usage is infringing. :P
As I understand it (w
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Plagiarism and|or corruption of social, political and,
> especially religious texts was unanimously considered harmful and
> was punishable a millennia before invention of the first copyright
> law[*]. This was solely in the interest of public, withou
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an
>> un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the
>> infringing.
>
> So what? We have an existing policy.
You've lost
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an
> un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the
> infringing.
So what? We have an existing policy.
29 matches
Mail list logo
