Fulfill your dreams
get your University Degree and
receive the payment and respect that you deserve!!
Get a Bachelors, Masters, MBA, and Doctorate (PhD) diploma!
No one is turned down!
Call Today 1-917-591-5128 (7 days a week)
Confidentiality assured!
out
http://bigclubhands.com/nom
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
> reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
> license without modification. This license may not be modified
> without the express written permiss
* Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040411 09:55]:
> This brings up the question (once again): is a legal text, such as a
> copyright license, copyrightable? In which jurisdictions?
In Germany, there is no exception for legal texts. There is however
one that laws (more exact: material laws) are
On Saturday 10 April 2004 15.44, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL 2.0 is
> > not DFSG-free because it terminates copyright permission for any
> > software patent action, including ones unrelated to the covered
> > software. The Licensor is also
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:19:11 +0200 Anders Torger wrote:
> > #5 places a distribution-like burden on certain types of use (e.g.,
> > use as part of a web server and you must distribute source).
>
> I thought this was no different than from the GPL, it is just more
> clearly stated here in the OSL
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Francesco Poli wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
>> reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
>> license without modification. This license may not b
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 11:19:11AM +0200, Anders Torger wrote:
> Many has said that because of this, GPL is not enforcable in most
> software packages, since they do not have click-wrap installation
> procedures.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
http://emoglen.law.columbia
Anders Torger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 10 April 2004 15.44, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > > For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL 2.0 is
> > > not DFSG-free because it terminates copyright permission for any
> > > software patent action, including ones unrelated t
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> For what it's worth, there have been a lot of vague mumblings about
> authors of "joint works" being able to license the work without
> requiring permission from other authors. However, I've yet to see
> confirmation of this from a copyright lawye
9 matches
Mail list logo
