On Monday 07 February 2005 02:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I've often wondered which part of the DFSG supports the notion that
> the right to create modified versions must be available even to people
> who don't want to pay money to the author to have that right.
Perhaps because the guidelines are
Hi,
I searched Google and the archives for this, but never found a solid
answer. I, along with a few others, would like to start a website using
the Debian name in the domain (we're using DotDebian.org as a working
name for right now). The goal/intent of the site is to provide new user
friendly
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:04:08 -0600, Josh King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The goal/intent of the site is to provide new user friendly forums
This part sounds like unnecessary duplication of effort. There are
already a great many such forums in existence, not least
http://forums.debian.net. What
Andrew Saunders wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:04:08 -0600, Josh King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The goal/intent of the site is to provide new user friendly forums
This part sounds like unnecessary duplication of effort. There are
already a great many such forums in existence, not least
http://foru
Come on In and Select a Rolex for you. [guidebook]
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 7/2/2005
> >Hi!
> >
> >Would a software with the following statement and without any further
> >copyright or licensing notice be free?
>
> No.
> >"Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved."
> >
> >Any issues with that?
> Copyright law requires *explicit* permission in order to do a whole bunch of
> thing
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:20:42PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
> > "Copyright 2005 by XYZ. The copyright holder hereby grants permission to
> > everyone, forever, to do anything with this work which would otherwise be
> > restricted by his exclusive legal rights."
>
> This is sufficiently short,
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:17:24 -0700 Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> But in my experience, when
> contacting authors, a great many of them simply copied boilerplate
> from an old BSD license, and if you discuss with them the rationale
> given by the University of California when they
> mass-retroactively-relice
Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] in light of the disagreements
> between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the
> GNU "Free" Documentation License being one prominent example[1]).
That's not the disagreement, as far as I can tell. I know we're
lazy, but "fre
Josh King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there another license then that should be used in place of the GFDL?
> Creative Commons? Something else?
I think the usual advice is for simple contributions to be licensed
under a permissive non-copyleft (like MIT/X11) and full manuals to
be put under th
Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Monday 07 February 2005 02:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> I've often wondered which part of the DFSG supports the notion that
>> the right to create modified versions must be available even to people
>> who don't want to pay money to the author to hav
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:51:45 -0600, Josh King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, our plan calls for more of a "portal" style setup. The forums
> would be one part of several other areas (i.e. the usuals of news,
> graphics/dekstop backgrounds, etc.). Additional features and areas will
> be added
On 01 Feb 2005 17:17:41 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This modified version has been approved of by at least one list
> > member[2].
>
> I don't remember much about Michael K Edwards except he's currently
> MIA from the New Maintainer queue
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:20:20 -0800 (PST), MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] in light of the disagreements
> > between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the
> > GNU "Free" Documentation License being one prominent example[
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 02:38:07AM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> I likewise believe that documentation is a subset of software, but the
> interminable debates on the topic convinced me that GR 2004-03's
> approach to resolving the ambiguity is the correct one - e.g. changing
> "1. Debian Will Rem
15 matches
Mail list logo
