On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:15, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to say:
> On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:43, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to
write:
> > On Saturday 17 June 2006 23:02, Joe Smith took the opportunity to write:
> > > "Magnus Holmgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > >
> > > >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Since DFSG apparently (according to the recent discussion) only deals with
>copyright and restrictions imposed by the copyright owner, I assume that
>uploading the independently developed Perl packages, libmail-domainkeys-perl
>and libmail-dkim-perl, should be possible
Am 2006-08-18 21:12:59, schrieb Ben Finney:
> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > since you can obtaine at any moments a legal individual licence
>
> Really? For any patent, from whomever holds it, in any jurisdiction,
Yes, I was contacting several of them and all
individual licence
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence?
> (Yes I know, Mark is realy rich)
It hasn't.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMA
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:37:08 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > AFAICT, CC seems to interpret the clause this way, since the
> > > explicit parallel distribution proviso was *removed* beca
Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:15, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to say:
> > I sent a "clarification request" using their feedback form a couple of
> > weeks ago. Still no reaction (reply or update of their web page). I asked
> > if their intention i
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:25:31 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote:
[...]
> Creative Commons did what we recommended here:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
>
> That is, they limited the removal requirements only to authorship
> credits.
>
> I think the general consensus was that it's OK to req
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:29:34 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
[...]
> > Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones
> > that (accurately) credit the author of the original work!
>
> The Berne Convention (section 6bis), and droit d'auteur regimes even
> befo
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:47:15 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones
> > that (accurately) credit the author of the original work!
> > As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a
> > CC-licensed novel,
Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since DFSG apparently (according to the recent discussion) only
> deals with copyright and restrictions imposed by the copyright owner
It's quite apparent from reading the DFSG that there's no such
limitation. The DFSG in particular are concerned with
I felt that it would be better to bring this to debian-legal. For
reference, this is about AppWeb, http://www.appwebserver.org/.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:52:07AM -0700, mob wrote:
> I wanted to follow up and make sure you received my responses to your email.
I did. Sorry, I've been deferring
Your message has been isolated because it contains either an executable or
zipped file. Many executable and zipped files sent by email are viruses. Your
message will be examined by NSW Department of Primary Industries Staff and
released if it is considered work related. Do not resend the messag
This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said:
> Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Since DFSG apparently (according to the recent discussion) only
> > deals with copyright and restrictions imposed by the copyright owner
>
> It's quite apparent from reading the DFSG that there's no
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:25:31 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > Considering that we think it's OK for the author to request to be
> > /added/ to the authorship credits,
>
> Let me understand this better, because I cannot remember having
> discussed
Hi.
I've made a modified version of an icon that shows on a sourceforge.net
page (http://timidity.sourceforge.net/). The program is GPL but that
icon isn't distributed with the tarball.
Before bugging again who I suppose is the copyright holder, I've read
the sourceforge's terms of use and got to
Kari,
Thanks for your detailed response.
Comments below
> -Original Message-
> From: Kari Pahula [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:30 PM
> To: mob
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Licensing problems with appWeb
>
> I felt
16 matches
Mail list logo
