Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
>
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to
> worry.
Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing
a patent which was what I was discussing.
Don Armstrong
--
I'd sign up in a hot second for any ce
Hi,
(I don't subscribe debian-legal. I just read the thread via
http://lists.debian.org/ web interface.)
> Are these all bitmap fonts, then?
No, the list includes outline fonts. These outline fonts adopt
TYPEBANK font as a starting point of desigining.
---
Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the
license changed?
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit :
> We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the
> newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant
> part of the streaming media on the Internet).
If we don't want to include this support, this is not
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g.
> xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no
> reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it.
lol. Why is it stripped? It's done with the binary DLL.
>
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the
> > newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant
> > part of the streaming media on the Internet).
>
> If we don't want to include this support, this is n
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit :
> > We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the
> > newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant
> > part of the streaming media on the Internet)
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 10:35, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS a écrit :
> > If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g.
> > xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no
> > reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it.
>
> Should this per
Op wo 08-10-2003, om 02:53 schreef Brian T. Sniffen:
> 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
> >> falle
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past
> discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such
> software can nevertheless be distributed in main.)
>
You're talking about the files in mwavem-1.0.4/src/
On 2003-10-08, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the only interesting question is whether a phone call from a
> non-legal Microsoft employee is enough for Debian to count the patent
> as enforced.
Alternatively, does anyone think there's a chance Microsoft would be
willing to stat
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>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
On 2003-10-08, Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, it is very unlikely that TYPEBANK Co. will win
> a lawsuit in any country. After all, similarity is not implies
> derivative work. But it is very likely that they will threaten,
> harass and terrorize everyyone who will eve
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to
> > worry.
>
> Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing
> a patent which was what I was discussing.
It'
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 16:03, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> You're talking about the files in mwavem-1.0.4/src/dsp, right?
Yes.
> Interestingly enough, those files are in RIFF format. It's a structured
> multimedia container format.
Interesting.
> Embedded somewhere in the header of v90.dsp is
> the
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> As Gabucino mentioned, it can also decode WMV9 using the win32 DLL's,
> but distributing them is presumably illegal, so this is only a solution
> for those who have a copy of some Windows version on their computer.
Then let's make it clear.
- is xine's win32dll loader mod
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:36:23AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The violation wouldn't be DFSG-related (the DFSG doesn't say anything
> about patents, only about licenses).
"License" is relevant to both patents and copyrights. If software is
affected by an enforced patent, and a license to tha
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote:
Then let's make it clear.
> - is xine's win32dll loader modified to deny loading WMV9 dlls
> or
> - just DLLs aren't distributed
Since MS doesn't appear to be suing anyone nowdays[1] for patent
violations while causing DLLs to be loaded, we've never had a pr
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> More importantly, the DFSG talks about required freedoms. If freedoms
> for a work are actively being restricted by eg. trademark or patent law,
> then the work is just as non-free as if they were restricted by copyright.
> For example, if the Official
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 02:16:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Actually, I believe it still would be DFSG-free. You are right in
> general that it doesn't matter which law is being used to impinge
> freedom. But a free Official Use Logo could (I think) be written in
> such a way as to be
Don Armstrong wrote:
> However, since they're generally not free software, nor (for the most
> part) are the even legal to (re-)distribute, we don't distribute them
> in Debian. (I'd strongly recommend that mplayer take a strong look at
> the DLL licenses if mplayer is distributing them.)
We don't
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:42:30AM +0200, Gabucino wrote:
> So this is not a problem - again.
And you're being rudely dismissive - again. Stop acting as if mplayer has
never had licensing problems - again - and as if being careful of
licensing problems is a waste of time - again.
Debian folks ar
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:51:42PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the
> license changed?
I think that, as a rule, the -legal mavens don't unilaterally approach
the authors of works or licenses.
The affected p
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:21:14AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> While I completely agree with the rest of this message, there is no
> reason to threat mplayer in a very special way: if no one can give a
> reason to reject mplayer, there is no reason to reject mplayer, like
> any other project. While
25 matches
Mail list logo
