I wish I was with you right now..,.heterodyne

I need to talk to you please. I want us to be together. I can't get you and us out of my mind. My webcam is on right now come to my site and talk to me. I can't wait to see you. http://xelytu.sugarburnett.info/cs3/ ___ Julian finite spiny ouch con

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

[I am continually amazed by the amount of effort that people will exert to avoid fixing bugs, even when that effort exceeds the amount required to fix the bug] On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:27:57PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > There are two areas where I think the write-up is a little more > harsh

Re: Linux and GPLv2

On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:25:29PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively > > when run, you must cause it, when started running for such > > interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an > > announcement including an appr

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 17:27 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > I apologize to be jumping in this at such a late stage. :) The more, the merrier. But sooner is always better than later. > Evan thanks so much for the summary. The additions in the last round > are all steps in the right direction IMHO

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

> [I am continually amazed by the amount of effort that people will > exert to avoid fixing bugs, even when that effort exceeds the amount > required to fix the bug] Sure. :) I absolutely agree that everything here should be fixed. I'm just not sure I agree that everything in the critique is a fr

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

> On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 17:27 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > I've actually gone over an earlier draft of this text with a > > representative of CC and have been having conversations on and off > > about potential fixes to the licenses. I'd love to have some part > > in the discussions. > > I'd

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

> > There are two areas where I think the write-up is a little more > > harsh/extreme than it should be (this is a critique that has been > > passed to me through SPI's lawyer and others who have looked at an > > earlier draft). > > I'm surprised by this. If, in the future, you review a document

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In general we should distinguish the types of problems we have with >the license and separate them into a few categories: Good work. Thank you for trying to add some sanity. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe".

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:27:57PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > In general we should distinguish the types of problems we have with > the license and separate them into a few categories: > > - Real limitations on freedom that seem to by by design; > - Wording that says something other than

public domain

Hi, I'm writing a backup program for GNOME on Debian-ish distros (specifically Debian and Ubuntu) and I want the some of the documentation to be public domain, however I can't find any good resources on how to relinquish copyright. The closest thing I've found so far is

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:27:57PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > > In general we should distinguish the types of problems we have with > > the license and separate them into a few categories: > > > > - Real limitations on freedom that seem to by by design; > > - Wording that says somet

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:13:46 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote: > 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

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:01:55 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote: > On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 17:27 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: [...] > > Who is organizing discussions with the CC folks? > > That would be me. > > > I've actually gone > > over an earlier draft of this text with a representative of CC and >

Re: ITP: antennavis -- antenna visualization software (please advise on togl license)

The authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this software and its documentation for any purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. No written agreement, license, o

Re: public domain

David Mandelberg wrote: > Hi, > > I'm writing a backup program for GNOME on Debian-ish distros (specifically > Debian and Ubuntu) and I want the some of the documentation to be public > domain, > however I can't find any good resources on how to relinquish copyright. > > The closest thing I've fou

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

Henri Sivonen wrote: > You do not have to provide a copy of the Work or the Derivative Work to > everyone, but when you do provide a copy to someone, you must not take > measures the circumvention of which would be both illegal in the > supported jurisdictions and required for exercising the rights

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:30:20PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > It is entirely possible that some licensor could go to court and say > > "I used the CC licenses in the belief that this was prohibited, and > > with the intent to prohibit it". There is nothing to use in defence > > against this.

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:50:15PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > My wife says about debian-legal, "It sounds like you are the white > > hat hackers of Free Software licenses. You find the security holes > > in the licenses before the bad guys do." I thought that this was a > > pretty good analo

Re: public domain

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 02:21:33PM -0500, David Mandelberg wrote: > I'm writing a backup program for GNOME on Debian-ish distros (specifically > Debian and Ubuntu) and I want the some of the documentation to be public > domain, > however I can't find any good resources on how to relinquish copyrig

Re: public domain

On Sunday 27 March 2005 11:21 am, David Mandelberg wrote: > think is relevant to copyright law and I definitely don't want in the docs: > > Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large > > and to the detriment of the Dedicator's heirs and successors. > > (the detriment pa

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:50:15PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > > My wife says about debian-legal, "It sounds like you are the white > > > hat hackers of Free Software licenses. You find the security holes > > > in the licenses before the bad guys do." I thought that this was a > > > pretty