On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:24:11 +1000, Simon Wright wrote:
> It's a simple, generic stroke of "rough charcoal", a standard brush
> shape that ships with Adobe Illustrator. Actually, it's one of the
> five defaults that appear in the brushes pallete when you begin any
> new document
>
> I don't see any
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:24:11 +1000, Simon Wright wrote:
It's a simple, generic stroke of "rough charcoal", a standard brush
shape that ships with Adobe Illustrator. Actually, it's one of the
five defaults that appear in the brushes pallete when you begin any
new docume
Thanks for your answer...
Mmmh, you should explain the dependence relationship better.
How do these executables interact with bamg?
Do they invoke it by forking another process?
Do they link against it?
Do they incorporate parts of bamg source code in their own code?
The invoke it by forking a
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually, one could wonder who was first. I'm not blatantly assuming
> Adobe just took the swirl without looking at our copyright, but then
> it's not entirely impossible either.
It ought to be possible for someone to dig up a pre-1999 version
Illust
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Scripsit Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> The fact that this wave of other usages of the swirl is fairly recent
>> (or is that a perception on my side?)
> The first case I remember is
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/07/msg00167.html
** Raul ::
> On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
> > got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
> > is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
> > cash
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me
> both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less
> reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and economics.
> Misrepresentations and charlatanry
On 8/3/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded,
> the FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian
> should re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
Why?
Personally, I've quoted th
Hello
We got thousands software at low low price
visit us now
erevansoft.net
visor
On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you
> fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what
> your references to all kinds of precedents and such are worth.
You've got a fair point, in that RMS d
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:44 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> How many participants in the KDE/Qt brouhaha actually cited relevant
> case law?
I recall that quite a bit of case law was discussed. Perhaps the
debian-legal archives could tell you more.
> In any case, there's a perfectly good ar
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale. He has been
> admitted to the bar in New York and before the Supreme Court. He has
> clerked in district court and for Justice Thurgood Marshall. He has
> held a professorship of
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale.
>
> It is. And, from my perspective, it completely destroys your
> credibility.
What makes your opinion more credible than
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me
> > both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less
> > reflect an accurate perspective on the surroundin
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 13:11 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you
> > fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what
> > your references to all kinds of p
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It could be the case that everyone who disagrees with you whom you think
> should know better has ulterior motives. However, I think you need to
> consider the possibility that you simply do not understand the subject
> matter as well as you thi
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I may not be much in the legal department, but you are now commenting on
> a field I am trained in. Suffice it to say that you have not thought
> seriously about the implications of your conflation of ethics and
> economics--or that if you have,
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've got a fair point, in that RMS doesn't see his arguments as
> preaching economic superiority; and certainly many commentators have
> contrasted RMS's "ethical" perspective with, say, ESR's "economic"
> perspective. I don't entirely a
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:23:46 +0200 Alexis Papadopoulos wrote:
> Thanks for your answer...
You're welcome, but, please, do *not* reply to me while Cc:ing the list,
as I didn't ask you to do so. I am a debian-legal subscriber and I'd
rather avoid receiving replies twice... Thanks.
>
> > Mmmh, you
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, there's a perfectly good argument that for
> > Debian to piss off the FSF is not a good idea whether or not they have
> > a legal leg to stand on. I personally would be ashamed to lend my
> > good name to their conduct in recent
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:52 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded, the
> FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian should
> re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
If you can prove that the FS
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 15:21 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> No, I just explained where I was coming from in characterizing RMS's
> public posture as "preach[ing] the economic superiority of the free
> software system". How you can call this an attempt to shut down the
> debate is beyond me. If
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't
> exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe
> communication between people -- that it's impossible to codify
> property rights protecting them. There
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 01:40:42PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That RMS gets paid for all the speeches he gives would indeed be news.
> > I have first-hand knowledge that he follows invitations to speak about
> > free software when prov
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I consider it a "grievous error" to claim that RMS "preach[es] the
> economic superiority of the free software system". You were not calling
> for an inquiry of any kind in that statement; you were simply snarking.
> And you were called out for
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/3/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't
> > exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe
> > communication between people -- that it
On 8/3/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would again be news to me. I've just given two talks at LinuxTag
> (the biggest Linux-related event in Europe) and all I got was two nights
> in a hotel room. That's what all the speakers get, some do get part of
> or all of their travel
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's probably a lesson in here somewhere.
>
> "information" is also a term used to describe how people
> communicate.
Indeed, among other things; and it is a term sufficiently broad and
vague as to have very little utility in law.
> You try
28 matches
Mail list logo
