Re: Request for IPR review

2004-12-25 Thread Mark Johnson
Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:38:01PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote: > > I've been asked to get some sort of review from the free software world of > > > the new OASIS[1] IPR draft. I tried to review it myself, but the legalese > > is a bit on the opaque

Re: LCC and blobs

2004-12-25 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 10:55:04PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: >> >> Great. Then the driver operates differently depending on the presence >> >> of additional software -- it needs a Linux kernel and th

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-25 Thread Nathanael Nerode
> So can you say why >it is a problem with my license, and not with Apache's and PHP's? Nobody is going to say that, because we think it's a problem with all those licenses. It was a problem with Apache's license. It was not noticed for a long time. Eventually it was noticed, and it was *fixed

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)

2004-12-25 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Consider adding the following to the summary under "trademark restrictions": Debian-legal has contacted Creative Commons about this issue, since it seems to be trivial to fix, but has unfortunately received no response. Perhaps also add the following to the summary: We would really like to work

Re: LCC and blobs

2004-12-25 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> That's not software. That's firmware, at best -- you can look at it >> as software, but then you don't get to distribute any drivers. It is >> also internally consistent to think of chips as hardware and >> distribut

Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?

2004-12-25 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Unfortunately, trademarks apparently don't work that way in civil law > countries, and only arise through registration (with certain exceptions such > as your own name). Which are those countries? In Denmark, for instance, trademark rights can be

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)

2004-12-25 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:09:38 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Consider adding the following to the summary under "trademark > restrictions": > > Debian-legal has contacted Creative Commons about this issue, since it > seems to be trivial to fix, but has unfortunately received no > response. > > P