On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 02:56:38PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 17:17 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >This one probably doesn't count, any more than putting something in a
> >tarball - it's a transport encoding change, with no
a group before we try anything else.
Are you seriously trying to use a rationale like "Oh, I didn't really
*mean* that when I agreed with the DFSG, I only meant for things for
which I felt it was appropriate"?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpj8MLtvJFYe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
gt; place.
>
> We wouldn't be staying in one place. By doing what I propose, we would
> know our opinion as a group. Right now, all we know is what some of us
> think personally, but that will not get us anywhere.
I remain confident that Debian will n
t
include them at all if we didn't have to; we only accept them because
forces beyond our control require us to.
Any one of these would be enough on its own. There's probably some
more that I've forgotten.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpsPPRuwp4i9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:07:07PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >We have not, to date, had any difficulty in interpreting the DFSG as
> >applied to documentation, excluding the lunatic fringe who appear,
> >stick their oar in, and cease to send mail
here *if we distribute GPL'd software*. But that's
> the rub, isn't it? We're only required to distribute those invariant
> sections if we distribute the manual. So we're back to removing the GPL by
> the same argument
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:25:21AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:46:19PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:00:02PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > Actually, my goals are the opposite. I see it as intellectually
lly provide such a restriction which is meaningful and
desirable, or is this just handwaving?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpQLWsDxkjxp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
exts"
>
> BTW, are you aware that probably still wouldn't make the GFDL a free
> documentation license?
The smoke test for any such proposed guidelines is that it should
classify the GFDL and RFC licenses as non-free.
Kinda makes you wonder what the point is...
--
roup of people
sufficiently interested in such matters to want to talk about them on
a semi-regular basis.
Why people think that this group is _not_ representative of the
project's collective opinion on legal matters is beyond me...
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** |
because it condones anything
forbidden by copyright law as being an acceptable restriction - when
it probably isn't, especially if you happen to live in the US.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | An
ich they don't.
What we have actually been saying to the FSF is "The FDL has all these
issues...".
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpBl5odYyj4v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
g else. The DFSG applies to everything in
"relevant" (see Joe's original mail), and I don't really care what
happens to "irrelevant".
Aside from the difference between these two groups, I don't think we
need to concern ourselves with what other categories a given i
.
> Note, there still can
> be special rare cases, where such a freedom is really needed.
I'm calling you on this one: I say there are not, other than selling
software. Back it up or drop it.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Su
modification clauses in the license. They can do so for
new releases of the software only - which is effectively changing the
license.
Now, if the license *did* have termination or modification clauses in
it, then we do indeed have this problem.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew
ding this one.
This alternative happens to be the one which is accurate, as far as I
can see (at least, that's what RMS said).
> >b) As far as encrypted file systems, the only answer I see is that the
> > GFDL is non-free.
>
> Please, check the ar
rn - does it matter that your lunch is not
DFSG-free?]
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgp8VITnGKOlO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
seems bogus to me.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgp988IdFdzjC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
gram on your computer, with or without your knowledge.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgp9TpS1KGKBe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
eline, who was probably stoned at the time
As usual, it's like the verbal form of LSD, but once you disentangle
that you tend to avoid using the word "freedom" much.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpblVBKx8ys2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e.
>
> Bellyfeels are perfectly legitimate for value judgements with little
> impact beyond the individual making them. What's your favorite song?
"Bellyfeel" sounds perverted.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpqa9kCz2DHO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ternet,
More nonsense.
> which, in
> order, is the material root of the many most valuable modern
> freedoms.
And again.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpGLP7aZtWAc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ell use BMP, which RLE-compresses just as
well and doesn't have the stupid 256 colour limit.
LZW was the whole point of using GIF, and the only real reason why
people were willing to put up with the colour limit for so long.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :
n. The University of Oulu probably also has partial copyright
interest. You would need postive approval (not just consensus) from
_all_ of these people - which first means you've got to find them all.
Basically: forget it.
--
.''`. ** De
ffect Guidelines. Does anyone want to take
> some of the others? We have a lot of work ahead.
What about the copy of the DFSG contained within doc-debian? Do we
need a DFSGFSG as well? I can predict an infinite series here...
--
.''`. *
Alternatively, a list of "good" dictionaries should be included.
Or you could fuck off.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpkBTDRLhXqu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
the social
contract (without even discussion, let alone consensus or the
necessary GR), for any reason.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpt2XZ4h6Xt9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
coming at it from. The unexpected thing is that the binary, or
jpeg, can *ever* be considered free. Conversely, any argument which
says jpegs are always free enough, also says the same thing about
program binaries. There's nothing special about pictures here.
We did this one years ago and conclu
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:08:41PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's odd, but it's odd in the opposite direction to the one
> >
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (Mostly cut, because this is the fundamental argument:)
>
> > Yeesh, this is like the documentation thing all over again. Are we
> > going to have to g
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:28:35AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
> >> adeq
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>> What freedom are
o have it but don't distribute
it probably just didn't think of it.
Cut it out.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Requiring layered formats for
> > > source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in man
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:41:43PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > And
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "This is a photograph" is not sufficient information to determine
> > whether something might be source. Extreme examples: a photograph of
> &g
low a reasonable person to modify it in reasonable ways.
It is not the definition that we use. We accept procmail as free
because it can be modified by the author, even though it's
impenetrable to most other people
not have anything to add to the discussion. Particularly since
it's not even a discussion at present, but merely those of us who've
been thinking about this stuff for a long time shooting down the FUD
of those who haven't thought about it at all.
--
.
win for the relevant university;
they'd have a fair amount of work to do to prove that they own it and
have not implicitly licensed it, and that neither the statue of
limitations nor doctrine of laches applies; they have been gross
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:51:47PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > Andrew Suffield writes:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:43:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That example was carefully selected. You don't *get* another chance to
> > take a picture of a lightning bolt. They only last a second or two,
>
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:49:18PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > By this definition, procmail is non-free because it does not have any
> > forms that allow a reasonable person to modify it in reasonable ways.
>
> T
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:59:19AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050304 08:50]:
> > They do not have anything to add to the discussion. Particularly since
> > it's not even a discussion at present, but merely those of us who've
>
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 06:10:21PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What on earth would be the point of that? It won't magically become
> > free just because the "wider community" doesn't want to make
hy random people should not be writing licenses.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s
they're either completely incompetent, or they have some reason for
keeping it broken that we don't know about.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
. The problem is that you then have to
extract something like this for every package, so it's a problem that
never goes away.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
rict the ways people can write licenses
or contracts can very rarely be overridden by the contents of those
documents :P
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
;.
Not particularly. The traditional method is to wait until they're dead
and forgotten, and their estate has disappeared.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ses? Have you all gone collectively insane or something?
There are plenty of other licenses you could choose from, most
prominently the usual batch of suggestions.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
elevant. So doing that sort of thing in the license
won't help, and it's not legal in the first place so the whole affair
is pointless.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
mangled variation on CC-BY, if you pretend that
it's really the same thing? So just 'clarify' it into the MIT
license...
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
;t distribute this in the US (at least without
consulting a lawyer) given their absurdist DMCA behaviour.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
thing to require...
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, which means you can use them for anything you want.
> >=
>
> Public domain should be fine for main.
It's free, it's just not recommended. Public domain is problematic in
various ways.
--
.''`. ** Debian
. All you can really do
with it is to look at it; hanging it on the wall is probably okay too.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
air use"
> is about.
Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies
on the American notion of "fair use" is non-free, because in t
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:10:41AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
> > rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies
>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:26:18PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:38:19PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:10:41AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
or distribute it, with or without
> modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
> >8>8>8>8>8>8>8>8
It's free, but it's sloppy. I find it hard to believe that FSF legal
passed this.
--
.
s it just the GPL?
[Your investigations into whether the material is copyrightable are
probably unnecessary at this point]
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
nse of the
program. It's one of those fuzzy cases that is difficult to
predict. To avoid problems, the license of gcc explicitly disclaims
this, granting you an unlimited license to do anything with its
output.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' :
d it, in plain text,
as if it were part of the license? Yes, I would say that is
sufficiently ambiguous, since not even the licensors can understand
it's supposed to be disjoint.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
clause makes no restrictions.
We'd probably be better off without this clause, but I can't even
think of a way it could be as bad as the 'pet a cat' license.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
not sure that the least common denominator is the best way to
> making the decision on whether this is a freedom issue in the
> license.
The existence of one idiot implies the existence of N broken copies,
where all of them copied the file written by the idiot. License errors
propagate like flies.
to depend on such matters in order to be
DFSG-free. We aren't asking for anything particularly complex here.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s on how to relinquish copyright.
This is fraught and complex. Public domain is unfortunately clumsy;
copyright law is acutely pro-corporate.
It is much simpler if you just use the MIT license. It has the same
practical effect with less hassle.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
. There is no enforceable right or party to
> enforce the right.
This is not true in all jurisdictions. Notably it's not true in the
UK. Pro-consumer laws have strange and interesting effects when
applied to free sof
port it (of course). I'm not saying
> we should just start accepting any license in the grey area (or even
> this licenses and I think has some unambiguously non-free bits); I'm
> saying that there is nothing but a grey area.
Sounds like the old "because you can't be per
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050324.html
I am continually entertained by the way that Adams manages to be right
all the time.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http:/
lawyer. "Everything will be better if we can make
it more complicated".
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This not a theory. This is practical experience. This is why pine is
> > not free.
>
> The awkward phrase in the pine license is:
>
> &
ut I'm not sure they need to (generated
> Makefiles, short scripts, READMEs, etc).
I would expect to see a license for the whole tree, of the form
"Anything not otherwise stated is licensed under the GPL", to cover
the build system and documentation and stuff. Individual f
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> >> The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free.
> >&
I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really
want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close.
Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : h
nks
to the site releases precisely one work under their license). I don't
know where they got their numbers though, because google comes up with
about 20k references.
So in summary, I think that "10 million" is pure fiction.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 08:25:34AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:41:37AM +, Benjamin A'Lee wrote:
> > > I was under the impression that the output of a program wasn&
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:10:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really
> > want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close.
> &
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 08:31:20AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 03:27 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > So in summary, I think that "10 million" is pure fiction.
>
> Does it really matter?
Not particularly, but there's no reason to
that the answer is "yes"
in some of them, "no" in some of them, and "unpredictable" in some of
them, for most questions on this topic.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[1] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/54177
The rules vary depending on the relevant TLD, but generally speaking,
rich people are allowed to dicatate terms to non-rich people about
which domains they can use.
There are some exceptions, notably within some of the per-country
dom
:
http://www.debian.org/mirrors/sponsors
I suggest you contact the people listed as responsible there. They're
more likely to have an answer.
It'd be nice if we could provide information on what hoops you have to
jump through for various countries... but we don't currently have
.c driver which includes this firmware, in whole or in
> > part, requires the inclusion of this statement."
Finally, one with a real license. It's obviously non-free, but I see
no reason why it can't be d
n which sponsors it. Presumably their web sites
will have contact information. There's also a list with email
addresses someplace, but I can't remember where.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suf
ens to be software as well (and since it's written in info, it
probably qualifies as a program).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ld
not apply to the packages in question.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
nto the copyright statute rather than anywhere else.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ting for our purposes.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
would make qmail free, but due to the DFSG it isn't, so these
> > restrictions cannot be allowed.
>
> I think a better example would be the demonstration
> implementation of a protocol included with a standards
> document.
Java.
It's precisely the reas
be acknowledged somewhere easily
> accessible for the end user, such as the about box or product
> documentation.
Vague. What's 'usage', 'accessible', and 'end user'?
ch a document, being licensed under the GFDL
only. So that's not particularly relevant.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
at all.
> So what on earth do
> they mean, specifically? Does that mean, I can print the material to
> multiple pieces of rectangular paper and play poker with my buddies
> without restriction? It's arguably vagu
ording.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Okay, clearly more interested in being a dick than in writing a
license that doesn't suck. I have better things to do than waste time
trying to educate this fool.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : h
roll. Don't feed
the trolls.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:27:54PM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 05:03:09AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> >> Note: I am replying only to -legal for now, someone with more
> >> firm kno
ution, how close
> could I make it to the original *rules* and behaviour?
Game rules are not copyrightable. Period. The text of the rule book is.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
luetooth" without permission, since it isn't.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
; If upstream is dead, it's a bit difficult for them to request a copy.
Consider the case where 'upstream' refers to several hundred distinct
entities. It's the BSD advertising clause disaster all over again...
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s is just bullshit. A few people thinking it's not free does not make
> it non-free.
But Marco d'Itri defending it means it probably is non-free. Funny how
that works.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Li
601 - 700 of 774 matches
Mail list logo
