Hi Daniel!
You wrote:
> >This is also the easiest way to deal with your case - have copies of
> >the source on hand, and give them to anybody who asks for them
> >(charging extra for the extra media). Most people probably won't
> >ask.
>
> How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if a
Hello,
This link[0] shows a web site using a slightly modified version of the debian open license logo. The modification is that the logo is blue.
Does this constitute a violation of debian's copyright and does debian care?
[0] http://www.elektrostore.se/main.asp
Jeremiah
jeremiah foster wrote:
> This link[0] shows a web site using a slightly modified version of the
> debian open license logo. The modification is that the logo is blue.
> Does this constitute a violation of debian's copyright and does debian
> care?
This comes to this list every now and then. See th
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if anyone asks, I
charge for the media and burn the CDs? So I just have to bring some
CDRs and I know they won't go to waste.
Sure, that should be ok.
My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of lapt
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
> with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the
> sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".
I would be interested to hear afterwards how many people actual
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the
sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".
I would be interested to hear afterwards
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's license (
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=293346 ) can be considered
> free enough to be in main:
FYI, the right place to ask this is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moving it over there. Full-quoting because of this.
Summary: I don't believe this is
On 1/12/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
> > with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the
> > sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".
>
On 1/12/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Use of the ECW SDK with Unlimited Decompressing and Unlimited Compression
> > for
> > applications licensed under a GNU General Public style license ("GPL") is
> > governed by the "ECW SDK PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT".
>
> Not su
On 1/12/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Alexander>
> Alexander> Well, I'm in the DE. But in both UK and DE *the Rome Convention on
> Alexander> on the law applicable to contractual obligations* governs its
> interpr
Daniel Carrera said on Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:06:52PM +,:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> >As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
> >given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
> >"noncommercial". You have given no hint whether your distributio
On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the
> source code to every binary on the CD is available from you to the
> person you gave th
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> > distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the
> > source code to every binary on the CD is available
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> > > distributing only the binary. put on the CD,
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> >
> > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> > > > dist
On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > >
> > > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > >
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first sale".
By your logic... I stole something once, I didn't get caught, therefore
theft is not illegal.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> >
> > > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > > >
> > > > > O
On 1/12/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
> >
> > Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first
> > sale".
>
> By your logic... I stole something once, I di
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.
Download some FSF's perl like emacs.
>
> 2) Buy a computer without that piece of software on it.
Check.
>
> 3) Install the software on that computer, since you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I´m trying to create a package [0] that has been licensed by Common Creative
Deeds
2.5 [1]. Would you be as kind as to tell me if this license is compatible with
DFSG?
Thank you for your help.
Best regards,
Victor Seva
[0] http://bugs.debian.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I´m trying to create a package [0] that has been licensed by Common Creative
Deeds
2.5 [1]. Would you be as kind as to tell me if this license is compatible with
DFSG?
Thank you for your help.
Best regards,
Victor Seva
[0] http://bugs.debian.
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Universe won't collapse as a result, believe me.
Isaac got it:
-
Further, my understanding is that Alexander was proposing lawfully acquiring
and distributing copies and not making new copies. If the law requires that
a backup
On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
> to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.
I think you've misunderstood "the GPL is not a contract" as meaning
that there are no obligations associated with re-distributing GPL
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:35:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have no idea why -legal isn't in the loop, but I figured if I gave y'all a
> > heads up, you would be soon enough.
>
> Because it's -legal's job to interpret licenses, not the DF
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said, if not d-legal, then at least d-project.
Indeed - I think discussion what what the DFSG /should/ mean (such as
whether source code is required for certain items) is a project wide
decision rather than a legal one.
(The thread in question is o
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:06:44AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > That said, if not d-legal, then at least d-project.
>
> Indeed - I think discussion what what the DFSG /should/ mean (such as
> whether source code is required for certain items) is a project wide
> decision rather than a legal o
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:06:44AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Indeed - I think discussion what what the DFSG /should/ mean (such as
>> whether source code is required for certain items) is a project wide
>> decision rather than a legal one.
>
> An
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:08:22AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No matter how much you try to set them up in opposition to each other,
> > the Debian mailing lists are divided by *topic*, nothing more. Matters
> > relating to the DFSG are quite clearly on-topic for -legal, rather
> > than one
Alexander Terekhov said on Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:27:27PM +0100,:
> And I'm still not in prison. How come?
1. You have some kind of understanding with the copyright holder of
the program in question.
2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law.
--
Mahesh T. Pai
Di
30 matches
Mail list logo
