\"weakish jiang\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> IMO, sadly, at least the CC organization means \"all other\". In the
> Chinese translation of CC Attribute 2.5 . They use the a Chinese word
> meaning \"at the same time\", and the word \"comparable\" was omitted in
> the Chinese translation.
Y
Cc'ing because I forgot to look and mdpoole cc'd. Please do not cc me
on replies to debian-legal.
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any document that describes why debian considers CDDL[1] to not
> be DFSG compliant (if that statement still holds true)?
There is no single documen
On Monday 07 August 2006 17:02, Martin Man wrote:
Please do not cc me on replies to debian-legal.
> Hi all,
Hi,
> I was searching around the web regadring the $subj, but I was unable to
> find any official statement from Debian concerning the issue.
>
> Is there any document that describes why
Hi all,
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 11:56,:
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs wrt/
"choice of venue" paragraph present in CDDL.
Different people have different opinions. That should not surprise anyone.
We are not a grou
Hi Goeorge,
George Danchev wrote On 2006-08-09 12:11,:
Ok, I have some questions for you, seems like you should be able to give an
authoritative answer (this does not make CDDL 1.0 non-free, of course):
I will try, my answer is not authoritative, but based on what I read and
how I understan
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fair enough, but if ftpmasters decide on inclusion/exclusion of certain
> software, there should at least be common consensus concerting certain
> license.
Yes, there should be, but I doubt everyone gets it right every time and
ftpmasters are not exactly
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 15:23,:
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do understand it in this way:
- c-o-v as required by paragraph 9. of CDDL is "a note attached to the
license itself", to my understanding you can put there any jurisdiction
you want (you "as the author or contributor
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 17:01, Martin Man wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 15:23,:
> > Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--cut--
> the original package in question was cdrtools by Joerg Schelling, Joerg
> was claiming that debian refuses to upgrade to a newer version of his
> sources bec
Hi George,
George Danchev wrote On 2006-08-09 16:22,:
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 17:01, Martin Man wrote:
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 15:23,:
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--cut--
the original package in question was cdrtools by Joerg Schelling, Joerg
was claiming that debian ref
Martin Man writes:
> Hi all,
>
> MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 11:56,:
>> Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs
>>> wrt/ "choice of venue" paragraph present in CDDL.
>> Different people have different opinions. That should no
Marcel Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
> that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
> and some other things, it looks rather like a licensor trying to get
> some advantage, such as being able to
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 18:49, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Marcel Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
> > that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
> > and some other things, it looks rather like a l
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 09:00:04 +0200 (CEST) Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Hi,
Hi!
>
> How can I handle something like this?
With much care, I would say... :p
>
> > > I just wanted to know under which license is it released,
> > > because I cannot find any doc on that.
> > Pang 1.20 has no licence. It's
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An evil author (as copyright holder) despite his limited resources could
> cause
> lots of damage to a large company which has never violated his copyrights.
>
> This is even more scary.
Someone of sufficient evilness can do that whether they're actin
Matthew Garrett writes:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> An evil author (as copyright holder) despite his limited resources could
>> cause
>> lots of damage to a large company which has never violated his copyrights.
>>
>> This is even more scary.
>
> Someone of sufficient evilnes
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
> face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
> malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
> disbarment. These go away if the license explicitly
On 8/9/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
authors, but please note that some people have doubts about the legal
possibility to dedicate a work to the public domain under the Berne
Convention (that is to say, it's not even clear whether it's at all
possible to release something to the p
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
>> face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
>> malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
>> disbarment. These go
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Marcel Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
> > that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
> > and some other things, it looks rather like a licensor tryi
On Thursday 10 August 2006 01:07, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
> > face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
> > malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, p
20 matches
Mail list logo
