Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [sork] About license of sork modules]

On Mon, 01 May 2006, Chuck Hagenbuch wrote: > I suppose another question is, what level of contribution gives > someone enough copyright say to need to approve a license change? > Fixing a typo? A few lines of code? A whole new driver seems like > enough to me; what about tweaking CSS? I don't kno

Re: Bug#365194: Fwd: Re: [NONFREE-DOC] RFC1459, 2810-2813: IRC (Internet Relay Chat).

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 07:41:28PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:55:55 +0200 Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > Do I need to get the copyright holder of the documents to > > relicense it under the GPL? It seems clear to me that it > > already is covered by the GPL, but it shouldn't

Free Art License

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that > is DFSG-free. I believe that it is. However, it is not a very appropriate license for all-digital works. It is specifically designed to address physical artworks:

Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* and other codecs.

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:37:39PM +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell wrote: > The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another > codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and Advanced > Video Coding standards. Unfortunately, these are patent encumbered in at > l

Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* and other codecs.

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:37:39PM +0100, Matthew William Solloway > Bell wrote: >> The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another >> codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and Advanced >> Video Coding standards. U

Re: Free Art License

On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that > > is DFSG-free. > > I believe that it is. If you do, could you please reply to my analysis with an

Re: Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* and other codecs.

> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:37:39PM +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell wrote: > > The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another > > codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and Advanced > > Video Coding standards. Unfortunately, these are patent encumbered

Re: Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* and other codecs.

Oops, My mistake libavcodec is not using libx264, but it's own AVC decoder, and the FAA{C,D} code is an interface only. Matthew W. S. Bell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* and other codecs.

Matthew William Solloway Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:37:39PM +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell >> wrote: >> > The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another >> > codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and Advanced >> > V

Re: Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* and other codecs.

On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:13:02AM +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:37:39PM +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell > > wrote: > > > The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another > > > codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio C

Re: Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* and other codecs.

So given my idiocy I'm going to leave that detective work to someone else. I think the general picture is slightly more clear than opaque now though. MWSBell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]