Am 2007-03-11 12:14:09, schrieb Francesco Poli:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:01:30 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> > Even the GPL
> > terms could be used, so long as it's clear what "the preferred form of
> > the work for making modifications to it" means for that work.
>
> Agreed, with the addition that, I
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2007-03-11 12:14:09, schrieb Francesco Poli:
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:01:30 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
>>> Even the GPL
>>> terms could be used, so long as it's clear what "the preferred form of
>>> the work for making modifications to it" means for that work.
>> Agreed,
Hi,
I'm currently making a package for gtk-vim-syntax (ITP[1]). The files in
this package are auto-generated by a script (the script is in the
public domain). This excerpt comes from the README:
8<==
Copying: I hereby waive any potential rights on the syntax files. I
am not sure
On 3/28/07, Laurent Bigonville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By reading this I'm tempted to think that these files belong to the
public domain. Could the name of functions and parameters owned by
someone? Who must I credit for these files and under which licence? What
do you think?
I'd say they
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:18:32 +0800 Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) wrote:
> Michelle Konzack wrote:
[...]
> > I personaly consider "mp3/mp4" and "ogg" (vorbis, theora, ...) NOT
> > as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
> >
> > I asume, that there are nore then one person on
Laurent Bigonville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Copying: I hereby waive any potential rights on the syntax files. I
> am not sure whether a list of library symbols can be copyrighted at
> all. But this world is full of lawyers with the silliest ideas. The
> ideal state (which would solve all
We have a question about the default songs for the guitar-simulation
game Frets On Fire. (We would like to get the songs into main if
possible; otherwise, into contrib or non-free. But we need to satisfy
the Finnish music licensing organization Teosto. The full original
thread is at http://bugs
First off, thanks to all involved for working through this; legal
stuff is annoying, but getting it right early makes it all worthwhile
in the end.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote:
> We have a question about the default songs for the guitar-simulation
> game Frets On Fire. (We would like t
Hi all, hi Don; thanks for your input.
2007/3/27, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[parts snipped]
There's really no point to drafting such a license, because it would
not be acceptable for main, and more to the point, Teosto would have
to vet it. Teosto's lawyers should really be the o
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote:
> Maybe if debian-legal or I wrote the license (I have never written a
> license before, but maybe I could modify the MIT license) we could
> get Teosto to agree on more liberal terms than we would get if
> Teosto wrote one?
The following is what I would use
2007/3/27, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote:
> Maybe if debian-legal or I wrote the license (I have never written a
> license before, but maybe I could modify the MIT license) we could
> get Teosto to agree on more liberal terms than we would get if
> Teos
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote:
> 2007/3/27, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote:
> >> Maybe if debian-legal or I wrote the license (I have never written a
> >> license before, but maybe I could modify the MIT license) we could
> >> get Teosto to agr
On 3/28/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, it actually seems rather strange to me for an organization which
is designed to "protect" artists disallowing artists from determining
how their own works are licensed, so I'm trying to give them the
benifit of the doubt here.
Do they r
13 matches
Mail list logo
