On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:41:37AM +, Benjamin A'Lee wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 01:38:25PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> [...]
> > However, when starting irrecord, it says:
> > IMPORTANT: The license of the config files created by this program requires
> > that you send them to the author. I
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 12:44:11AM -0400, Maykel Moya wrote:
>>Today I attended at 'I Taller de Software Libre' in the most important
>>university here in Cuba. Some guys there are creating a Distro optimized
>>for our country, and they are taking Gentoo as base.
>
>>In thei
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew Suffield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a derivative work
>> on another original work independently
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glenn Maynard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies
on the American noti
Scripsit "Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Even when the work is not copyrightable? (eg header files :-)
It is false that header files are not copyrightable.
--
Henning Makholm "What has it got in its pocketses?"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:55:40AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > 'Worse' is purely a matter of perspective. There's irony here...
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 05:31:27AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No, there isn't. It's very simple. You called it a "perversion",
> which means you think it's w
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:16:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:55:40AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > 'Worse' is purely a matter of perspective. There's irony here...
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 05:31:27AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > No, there isn't. It's ver
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 12:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I think it is in the spirit of the Creative Commons licenses not to
> require a transparent copy for editing.
That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must be
supplied.
> Therefore, I think it would be wrong to "fix
Scripsit Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 12:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> I think it is in the spirit of the Creative Commons licenses not to
>> require a transparent copy for editing.
> That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must be
> suppl
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:45:38 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must
> > be supplied.
>
> Sure. But that doesn't mean that the *license* has to require it.
>
> For a work to be free, i
On Saturday 26 March 2005 01:01 am, Josh Triplett wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge (IANAL), there is no issue with someone in
> Cuba or another embargoed country downloading Debian from
> ftp.xx.debian.org, for values of xx != us or probably a few others.
>
> Key issue here: it is *not* illegal
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Um, yeah, I'm not a lawyer either... but I play one at school, and I
> wouldn't
> be so sure about that. While Cuba/US relations are pretty bad, Cuba does
> have relationships with other European nations. As part of the compromise
> between the US
I apologize to be jumping in this at such a late stage. :)
> Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft
> summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes have
> been:
>
> * Additional phrasing changes due to MJ Ray
> * Additional phrasing
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:54:54PM +0100, Michael Below wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Um, yeah, I'm not a lawyer either... but I play one at school, and I
> > wouldn't
> > be so sure about that. While Cuba/US relations are pretty bad, Cuba does
> > have relationships w
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:49:34 +0100 (MET) Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> > From: Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > I don't think it's forbidding to remove the code: it's merely
> > forbidding to drop a feature.
> > You could reimplement it in a better (or even worse) way, but you
> > must
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
[anti-DRM clause]
> In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:
>
> You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
> that control access or use o
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
[anti-DRM clause]
In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
that control access o
17 matches
Mail list logo
