On 1/23/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> A legitimate privacy device may function very much like DRM. Consider
> classified environments, where you really don't want people to copy
> things around willy-nilly. Making it hard to copy information won't
> eliminate leaks, but it
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Thanks for saving lost soul.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:58:28AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>This clause is universally interpreted to mean that the permission is
>>granted and you don't need to pay a fee to get that permission; in other
>>words, "for any purpose and witho
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I don't agree that this clause is DFSG-free.
>It says that the name of an augmented font cannot *include* the term
>STIX or *any similar* term.
>That is significantly broader than what is allowed by DFGS#4, which
>states (in part):
Your understanding of the DFSG is well b
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
> the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
> covenant to forbear from the exercise of
On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> > like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
> > the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breac
On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> > > like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and wil
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
--8<--
The Debian Project asserts that
Works licensed under
On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
> "With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MySQL has not
> demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
> irreparable harm. Affida
Plonk.
regards,
alexander.
Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
--8<--
The Debian Project asserts t
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:52:56AM +0400, olive wrote:
> Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> >Works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as
> >published by the Free Software Foundation (GNU FDL), are free in
> >accordance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), if and only
11 matches
Mail list logo
