On 2004-05-03 17:35:39 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Copyright notices have
a specific place in Debian, and are always placed there.
Moving them would violate the law.
What law?
Furthermore, we expect copyright notices to also indicate the terms
under which they are (or are n
On 2004-05-03 18:53:35 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this is about interoperability rather than monopoly.
Sure, but you started on about monopolies, which don't really have
anything to do with this directive. I assumed that you were
referencing competition la
On 2004-05-03 18:30:53 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If Debian would pro-actively find effective and reasonably ways to
credit
authors, then the tension would come out of this situation
It is difficult to be pro-active when having to react to developers.
Also, "reasonable"
On 2004-05-03 18:45:16 +0100 Sebastian Feltel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Wich license (which fits the documentation needs and is
DFSG-compatible)
would you use if you were in my situation?
Probably a very simple licence, a localised appropriate (by? by-sa?)
Creative Commons licence (if avai
On 2004-05-03 19:41:30 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
under GPL.
People fork them and create competition?
or open source project with an incompatible license is entitled to
request a compatible license and
On 2004-05-03 22:53:05 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
because of its dumb developers who won't answer simple questions
about
^^^
Hey, can you do anything else but insult people?
I'm not sure what you mean.
On 2004-05-04 07:28:49 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no: what's news is that the copy of 91/EC/250 on which i based the
entire justification for the reverse engineering necessary for samba
to interoperate with windows nt domains has DISAPPEARED.
As I understand
On 2004-05-04 03:13:15 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Recall that the Creative Commons Attribution license was ruled to be
DFSG-non-free by debian-legal [...]
Thank you for making me aware of this.
On 2004-05-03 15:24:00 +0100 Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rememer that an "ad-clause" usually does not render a work non-free,
> just incompatible with the GPL. [...]
An "ad-clause" usually applies to documentation or advertising supplied with
the software, not the software package
On 2004-05-04 15:00:57 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
European
law wasn't as developed as US law by this time (1991).
As I'm sure you know, European law is not an homogenous whole, so
occasionally there are harmonisation and generalisation parts in
directives. You can fi
Apologies for being out-of-thread, but the message hasn't reached me
yet.
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
"When any Licensor asks, all references to their name(s) must be
purged
from the work. This restricts modification (DFSG 3)."
This is an unalienable moral right in most
On 2004-05-04 17:20:56 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand why they lost interest in talking to persons who cannot
grasp
that distros removed mention of them from their man pages and this
was wrong.
That's actually irrelevant in that case. Their advertising clause is
a
On 2004-05-04 18:02:28 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a difference between free software and plagiarizable
software.
There is a difference between free software and forced-advert
software, too. There is also the difference between a duck.
Debian wants software to be
On 2004-05-04 18:47:02 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our licenses are free and not plagiarizable. GPL V2 is plagiarizable
in the
view of folks at debian who felt free to remove the credits.
Can someone give a conclusive statement of what actually happened? The
bug report 1525
On 2004-05-04 18:40:49 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I wonder if you're aware that virtually every distro is moving away
from XFree86.
They don't want to attribute. It is contrary to the distro brand
awareness
monopilization interest.
I look forward t
On 2004-05-05 14:41:23 +0100 Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings! Is the following DFSG free?
No, it forces disclosure upstream. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00011.html
I am researching free software licences written for UK law at the
On 2004-05-16 10:41:11 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is void in most jurisdictions since most
jurisdictions require that assignment of copyright has to be in
writing. AFAIK, English law too requires assignment in writing.
That is my understanding too.
On 2004-05-06 19:53:10 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Show me the line in those credits where it said "buy Coca-Cola
cheaper here".
They were credits, not advertisements.
Someone else has given the most extreme example of this. I thank them.
Can you supply their full verbatim p
On 2004-05-16 12:02:46 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FSF has very valid points in having invariant sections, because
invariant sections, as used by FSF serve a very useful purpose. (I am
an example of how these invariant sections introduce - rather
enlighten - p
On 2004-05-07 00:21:32 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You seem to understand the difference between modification and
plagiarism as plagiarism is a modification that you dislike because
it
doesn't praise you enough.
Summary: no exemption for FSF; doc-advocacy package suggestion; hope
this is resolved.
On 2004-05-07 03:31:44 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray said on Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:37:26PM +0100,:
been less or more enlightening if you had the freedom to edit it?
I
On 2004-05-07 11:48:55 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Council Directive 91/250/EEC 14 May 1991; enacted in the UK as S.I.
1992
No. 3233
does anyone here know what site can be used to obtain the document
SI 1992 no 3233?
It is on
http://www.legislation.hmso.go
On 2004-05-07 17:38:32 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that stops - dead - any benefit by the open source community to
perform reverse engineering, because it explicitly says that you
may not release the source code.
Only the decompiled code may not be released a
On 2004-05-07 18:56:07 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Many Free Software authors would be upset at some uses of their
software
Indeed. We must take such users and use them to defeat themselves, by
using their contributions to help us do our work and promote our
message, in a
On 2004-05-07 15:53:17 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray said on Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:57:30AM +0100,:
doc-advocacy package suggestion; hope this is resolved.
A good idea. `doc-semifree' would be better though.
I think you missed my point. I suggest produc
On 2004-05-08 10:33:44 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Effectively, these clauses say "you must send us all your
improvements and license us to do whatever we want with them."
That is the general problem with the Poly/ML licence, yes.
On 2004-05-09 09:33:48 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Weirdly, instead of the usual system where everyone gets a license
from the
original copyright holder, this grants everyone the right to
sublicense
under the same agreement. I think it has much the same effect, but
it's
On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
> under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Normally, you should include the licence text.
> Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searc
On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
software. [...]
It only termi
On 2004-05-13 03:29:35 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
software. [...]
[...] This has the effect of a patent
cross
On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
like
the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
nullifying
the patent in question. [...]
What if you want to enforce some other patent a
On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the
cases
above, terminate?
This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from
all
of the software's c
On 2004-05-13 18:12:32 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
such a
patent in a counte
On 2004-05-13 18:24:21 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Also, note that this license isn't saying "We license you these
patents,
...", but instead "We license you whatever patents we may or may not
have over this software, ...". Like any other piece of software, it
may
or may
Seo Sanghyeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shared Source License for IronPython
>
> This license governs use of the accompanying software ("Software"), and your
> use of the Software constitutes acceptance of this license.
This licence governs use not copying?
> You may use the Software for any
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I think that sounds lovely in theory... however, I really have no sense of
> how the ftpmasters synthesis the debates that go on here.
I don't think many do. I watch the effects and try to work out
what's happening. Sometimes it's good, sometimes ba
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, the code of conduct says that the canonical way to ask to be Cc:ed
> on replies is setting an appropriate Mail-Followup-To: field.
> Asking the same in the message body (in natural language) is a useful
> reminder for users of MUAs that do not auto
Petr Gajdusek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only notice in the documment says:
> "This publication is not copyrighted. One can copy it and use any part
> of it with mentioning the source. Publishers ask only for information
> about it."
>
> Is this sufficient to include publication in main sect
Ricardo Gladwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm new to this list and I'm planning to submit a license for review.
> I'm not sure of the procedure for doing so: I know I should send the
> entire text of the license in the body of my email, but what other
> rules are there and what is the scope?
T
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2005 17:37:05 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > As such, the permission granted to copy it and use any part with
> > attribution is needed and might be sufficient
> With no permission to modify?
It's a hack, but you can
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trying other 'forums' will probably produce a *different* answer.
> We use the DFSG as the guidelines to determine if a work is free or not.
> Other groups/foundations/projects use *different* criteria.
Maybe, but there's not really much difference in re
Ricardo Gladwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/08/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But when the question is "is the GFDL a license suitable to release free
> > documentation?" their answer is very different from our... :-(
We don't really have a shared concept of "free docum
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> As source code, it is not a derivative, I agree... but once it is compiled
> it
> is now a derivative work joining the library with the code to form the final
> binary. Its the act of compilation that creates the derivative work.
Most (all?) php a
Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to package the existing game "LARN" for Debian.
> Before I send out an ITP, I'd like to clarify one issue.
> The text below is what I'd currently put in "debian/copyright".
> Is this sufficient to enable addition into contrib or main ?
Does anyone d
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] When a user downloads phpbb2 and joins it with PHP to
> create the finished derivative product it seems they are in violation of the
> license.
Can users call the combined thing "0x6a671236" or something?
It'd still be accurate to say it's produced f
Simos Xenitellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html
>
> It looks that the license is similar to that of Bitstream Vera (good!).
> Could you please check the license and provide feedback to them?
> [The feedback form at www.stixfonts.org is not working at
seven sins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i am looking for information on how the debian teams
> views legal status of faac and xvid. [...]
I can't see either package is in debian. I think the only
public information on the *teams*' views (as opposed to individuals
on debian-legal) is usually the
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying
> with for a slightly more (informally) directed approach to license
> analysis, that should prove harder to derail with long pointless
> tangents and more immune to revisionism by t
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[control definition]
> The intent here is to avoid a party to this license spinning choice
> assets off into a corporation for the express purpose of playing shell
> games and screwing the licensor in the event of license termination.
If the screwing has a
Choice of venue is a practical problem because it limits
the number of people who can understand the full meaning of
a licence, including the local wrinkles of its venue. I say
there's potential for an effective fee in some cases, but I
don't know the courts of (say) Santa Clara well enough to
know
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I
> think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't
> enforce?
A licence can communicate your wishes to others clearly and
it's a sort of promise to your collabor
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Nothing paricularly non-free seeming about that. Heck it means that moving
> code between subsideriaries is not distribution, which could be helpful to
> some companies.
> So I think this clause is a non-issue.
Thanks to all for the explanations. I
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and
> >> every Contributor for any liability incurred by the
> >> Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of
> >> warranty, support, indemnity or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
> some restrictions present in the CDDL.
It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
license is free, then it's up to you to explain why it follows
the DFSG and conv
Mathias Weyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some time ago I adopted the celestia package. The package contains textures
> which seem not to be DFSG free. (see bug #174456).
>
> It looks like the main problem is the NASA's JPL license[1]. I have two
> options now: Either I replace those textures b
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's what I have in mind:
> http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/licenses/cddl/summary.html
It looks a comprehensive minute apart from repeated points, but
some of the stock language needs a tune-up (Who cares whether the
licence is DFSG-free? We pack
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [MJ Ray wrote:]
> > Restricting support deals for main could have awkward
> > consequences for companies who supply debian-based services.
> > This clause could have been worded differently ("in the absence
> >
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
> No, it is not.
> The "dissident test" is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors
> invented, but which has no grounds in the DFSG.
It originated in
htt
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since one of our release goals for etch is to remove any non-DFSG-free
> documentation from main here some comments from the release team on
1. Wishlist: non-DFSG-free seems odd and invites the "DFSG aren't DFDG"
response. Maybe "documentation which d
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > 5. Wishlist: use gfdl-1.2, cc-2.5, ... as applicable. We may yet get
> > improvements.
>
> Hmm, I don't know if we win anything by doing this. Either the license
> if free, then we can close the b
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:07:30AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: [...]
> > So I guess NTP should be removed from Debian. It's not very=20
> > maintained anyhow, having multiple RC bugs open for quite a while.
[...]
> Obviously we can't ship non-distribu
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >It seems grounded in the DFSGs "1. Free redistribution" and
> >"5. No discrimination against persons or groups".
> It may seem so if you are willing to stretch enough the meaning of the
> DFSG in ways it was never supposed to be.
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > If non-discrimination doesn't cover groups persecuted by
> > governments, who does it cover for you?
>
> I think the point here is that a licence doesn't d
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:08:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > So a licence that doesn't discriminate against non-US, but forbids
> > changes made with non-US keyboards from being distributed would be
> > fine by you? (T
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] They do impose a potential cost on
> litigation related to that software, but the DFSG shouldn't be used as a
> weapon to change the legal system. [...]
Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the
legal system. That has led t
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Copyright licences also shouldn't be used as a weapon to change the
> >legal system.
> Why not?
Do yourself a favour and learn how statutes and agreements differ.
> > That has led to things such as any-patent-death clauses
> >a
Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have been reading the huge thread about the CDDL and its clause of
>venue, and I'm wondering.. Lets imagine a CDDL license without this
>clause, would it be classified as free?
I think there are also:
* required identification and inde
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As others have said before, this mostly boils down to a convenience factor.
> This clause makes the venue convenient for the copyright holder in matters
> of enforcement, as opposed to making it convenient for the (suspected)
> copyright violator. That's
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:27:35PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > It makes it inconvenient for users and debian-legal, needing to
> > know local absurdities of Seaforth or whereever's court procedures.
>
> By this reasoning, we
Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate.
> http://flamerobin.sourceforge.net/license.html
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.txt
[...]
> My question is: Will FlameRobin be accepted in main?
Only ftpmasters can say for sure. I think this is a practical problem
for ftpm
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> MJ Ray, please would you be so kind to add your pointers about MPL and IDPL
> at: http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/licences.html
It may appear there once the dust has settled on this discussion.
Its next stop should be legal/dlp
Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been unable to contact Don Kneller so far, so I'm currently
> expecting to backport recent patches onto Noah's upstream version.
> Before I do that, I'd appreciate feedback on whether the text below
> is sufficient to explain the copyright and licensin
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] It has long been
> held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a
> cassette tape from a cd).
Maybe you've just worded this badly, or maybe you're relying on
some specific place's laws, but my private copying is subject to
c
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 17 USC 106 (which 17 USC 117 references) subparagraph b, is rediculous.
1. that is all about US law. Debian is distributed many other places.
2. many people consider much copyright law ridiculous. Sadly, it's
still the law and does "the law is an ass" ever
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> If a person has no reason to think that something may possibly be illeagal
> then there is likely a severe problem with the law.
There are severe problems with copyright law. Doesn't change whether
or not you broke it.
> For example, if a law prohib
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Pinheiro?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd rather not take any risks on this, specially considering what
> happened to a friend of mine last year. A student stole his source while
> he was away from the laptop and submitted it himself. The result was
> that both both of them
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Pinheiro?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think the plan will be controversial. In fact, I believe that it
> will be accepted and supported. It's not a question of waiting until
> course marks are given. The program I want to release has nothing to
> with any subject tha
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Pinheiro?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was talking about copyright details with a friend of mine a few
> minutes ago and he presented me the following scenario:
> Amazon has millions of book covers in their database [...]
I'm happy that you regard debian-legal highly enoug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The opensc package includes rsaref headers [0] from RSA. [...]
> - is this licence DFSG compliant? I would say yes but the (re)distribution
> right
> is not explicitely given.
>
> - is this licence GPL compatible? I would say no since it has the same problem
> than the
James Damour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I'm fairly confident that my project does not infringe on the copyrights
> of the boardgame authors, given my reading of the US code[4], [...]
I agree with you. I think others might not ("mise en scene" and all
that), so I leave it for them to sugges
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) wrote:
> Chrony doesn't include drivers for gps receivers, atomic clocks, etc. It
> is also not well known. People would say "Debian is useless! it doesn't
> even ship ntp!".
Just the way people say "Debian is useless! It doesn't even ship
ssh!" right? ;-)
The dr
Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Do opensc want to block gpgsm support?
>
> I guess not. That is not the intention.
>
> The OpenSC has a Credit page [1]. This page includes, without distinction,
> the licence(s) and the credit
"Christian Jodar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am in charge of a project that have been included in Debian unstable,
> GCfilms. [...]
A GTK2 application for managing dvd and video collections.
> We recently made a logo contest for this application. Winners have been
> designated. But their work
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Combined work is not a derivative work of its components. Combined
> work is protected as a compilation (at best, if at all) and falls
> under "mere aggregation".
If they are compiled in in some way that means that the GPL'd work
contains detailed kn
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to read your comments about the "Global IP Sound iLBC Public
> License, v2.0 - IETF Version - Limited Commercial Use" [1] [2].
> Please also see the ftpmaster references at #319201. [...]
> Sounds non-free to me since it limits the commerci
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2005 19:06:35 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If they are compiled in in some way that means that the GPL'd work
> > contains detailed knowledge of the expression of the CC'd work,
>
Dave Hornford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Province of Quebec language laws require, amongst other things, that
> all legal documentation be available in French and English unless the
> contracting parties explicitly agree to do business in one or the other
> language.
Other countries have
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray writes:
> > Sez law. If knowing that expression led me to write a new large
> > expression a particular way, wouldn't you call it derived?
>
> SCOX will no doubt be glad to hear that its "methods and processe
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aussonderung
> Kinder und Jugendliche mit Verhaltensproblemen
Is this something you are stating about yourself?
> On 01 Oct 2005 15:23:32 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If knowing that expression
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're in the process of migrating the wiki content now. How long to
> you expect it will take you to identify all of the copyright holders
> for each of the couple thousand pages in the wiki and process the
> messages from the copyright holders? [Have you
that this copying makes Linux an unauthorized derivative
> work of System V UNIX. This seems to be the same theory you propound. [...]
No, that is not at all what I am suggesting. I'm sorry it's not clear to you.
> MJ Ray writes:
> > "Influenced by" seems a rather we
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray writes:
> > The meaning should be exactly the same: the previous and known
> > expression leads one to pick from a limited (but maybe large)
> > number of ways to write a second expression that makes sense,
> >
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Copyright (C) 1994-1999 RSA Security Inc. Licence to copy this document
> * is granted provided that it is identified as "RSA Security In.c Public-Key
> * Cryptography Standards (PKCS)" in all material mentioning or referencing
> * this documen
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People who see that it is a problem have to take up the gauntlet;
> Indeed, one could ask what the contributors to this thread have
> been doing to speed this process along...
I think people have to consider it worth working to fix too. An
impression that
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does not 'equivalent' refer to the equivalency of access permissions,
> rather than access methods? [...]
FSF might disagree with that:
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code
"from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries.
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I don't care enough about a wiki.debian.org which seems to consist
> > of only "Immutable" pages and tells me I'm not allowed to edit a new
> > page.
> All of the pa
Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's possible that the short strings in this program are
> uncopyrightable since they're so short, and since there is no copyright for
> databases the collection as a group isn't copyrightable either. (Like fortune
> quotes.) But I'm not a law
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > http://www.spatula.net/software/sex/ says "Original author unknown.
> > Presumably this is public domain by now." Anyone know why they
> > presume that? [...]
>
> Possibly they're thinki
Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After a bit of research we (Andreas, me and some others) found that all
> the applications using the PKCS#11 API also use tha RSA header files.
> These header files are the API reference so it is normal to use them.
I thought the API reference was the
Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also checked the licence of the PDF file and it _also_ contains a
> publicity clause. [...]
Would we need to copy the document? I think it would just be taking
some ideas from it and re-expressing them, but I could be wrong.
> It seams the only huma
501 - 600 of 1495 matches
Mail list logo
