On Jan 26, 2008 2:52 PM, Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
> disclaimer like "TINLA"?
Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on
earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as
constit
On Jan 28, 2008 12:05 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If we have named Firefux the modified version of Firefox, I doubt the
> > Mozilla foundation would have let that pass.
>
> There's various other reasons for that and it wouldn't have been covered
> by a prohibition on calling it Firefo
On Monday 28 January 2008 01:27:54 am John Halton wrote:
> > Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal
> > system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is
> > a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it
> > away post fac
Florian Weimer wrote:
> | You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
> | convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
> | in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
> | of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or
> FW> GPLv3 makes it pretty clear that Dreamhost can take your rights away
>
> So all that effort of writing Free Software and the result is there is
> Johnny, sitting at the shell prompt, unable to see the source code
> to anything behind it if they decide to close it.
Yes, I find the bring-yours
Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
> disclaimer like "TINLA"?
I think the long list of acronyms may be a sly dig at certain silly
postings in times past which complained that certain people weren't making
it clear enough
"Arnoud Engelfriet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Florian Weimer wrote:
| You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
| convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
| in force. You may convey covered works to others for
John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008 12:05 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If we have named Firefux the modified version of Firefox, I doubt the
> > > Mozilla foundation would have let that pass.
> >
> > There's various other reasons for that and it wouldn't have bee
\"John Halton\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 9:07 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My first question would be whether those files would contain sufficient
> > creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. If they don't
> > (and I am not sure something
> FW> GPLv3 makes it pretty clear that Dreamhost can take your rights away
>
> So all that effort of writing Free Software and the result is there is
> Johnny, sitting at the shell prompt, unable to see the source code
> to anything behind it if they decide to close it.
Yes, I find the bring-yours
10 matches
Mail list logo
