Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Swedish law provides protection agains "confusingly similar"
> trademarks only when the two marks in question denote goods of
> the same or similar kinds. (Varum=E4rkeslag 1960:644, 6 =A7). This
> is not the case here.
I don't think
s coming rather soon, I brought this issue to SPI's
> secretarys attention, but SPI board would appreciate some suggestion
> what they should decide about license change.
I see it will be discussed at the board meeting at
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2005-10-18.html
Best wishes,
--
ffects many packages. See also
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00491.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00238.html
and maybe coordinate fix efforts with Charles Fry.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef), Lynn, England, to email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
--
To UNS
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. Debian really would prefer that the logo and name never be used in a
> case needing a trademark licence. [...]
Why do you think that? Consider the Debian UK Society, licensed
by the DPL, which trades as Debian at events.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only:
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
> | may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
> | from [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may indicate that your software works in
> | conjunction with PHP b
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait a second: how can it be DFSG-free, when there's permission to "copy
> and use" and to "make and use derivative works", but there's no explicit
> permission to distribute the derivative works?
> Did I miss something? [...]
You make and use the deriva
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | License to copy and use this software is granted provided that it
> | is identified as "RSA Security Inc. PKCS #11 Cryptographic Token
> | Interface (Cryptoki)" in all material mentioning or referencing this
> | software or this function.
>
> Permi
Niko Tyni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The source code in this package is copyright 1998-9 by Andrew Plotkin. You
> may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions,
> as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also
> incorporate this code into your ow
distribute* the KJV in England, as
far as I can see, but it seems you're not free to print it here.
The same may be true of some other Commonwealth countries,
as listed in s.3 and notes of Sterling above.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Wor
Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00108.html
>
> I don't see a conclusive answer in that discussion; only doubt and
> "didn't find any proof that this restriction still holds". I'd prefer
> if we could find a specific abrogation of the rest
Josh asked:
> [...] 15 different gnu/linux and bsd distributions, and it contains 20x20
> pixel logos of each of them. By default, the built package includes all
> the images, and I am wondering about any trademark issues and the legality
> of distributing them. [...]
If the logos are being us
Nicolas Spalinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> All the details are available at:
> http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
The page is not very accessible because you set color without
a background-color (set both or preferably neither, please)
and you seem to be using 8pt body text (ow). It's really not
nice to make
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enrice Zini suggested more elegant system on:
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/2005-November/001029.html
This is better, but misses quite a few common cases. OTTOMH, there are
also restrictions on distributing adapted versions, making private
changes, ar
ncludes PHP software"?
For now, I stand by my view: PHP under this licence follows
the DFSG, but it's inappropriate for software other than PHP
itself, including much of PEAR.
An obvious fix is to limit clause 6 to products derived from PHP,
or to make clauses 4 to 6 and the disclai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (quoting me without attribution)
> >>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/2005-November/001029.html
>
> >This is better, but misses quite a few common cases. OTTOMH, there are
> >also restrictions on distributing adapted versions,
> I think this could be marked b
Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> [...] CC Sampling+ license makes a ridiculous nature of use
> restriction [...] Has this subject come up here already?
I don't think that particular one has come up here, but some
of the CC licences like NC have similar ridiculous restrictions.
Even so
Oleksandr Moskalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> TiffIO is covered by a non-standard license full text of which is
> listed below. My analysis of the license has shown that I can easily bundle=
> it
> with lprof as by the clause 5.3.4. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE GPL LICENSE it wi=
> ll
> be covered by GPL in
restrict
-private's circulation and then to break that promise and
publish without permission. But is the approach in the GR legal?
Thanks for any advice,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask
--
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Perhaps because you think that several debian-legal subscribers won't be
> interested?
> Or rather because you think that subscribing a mailing list to another
> one is not a good idea (from a technical point of view)?
> Or because [fill in the blank, please]?
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, I've written a rough draft of such a document, at
> http://people.debian.org/~piman/real-license.html [...]
Personally, I'm not bothered if people put "under the same terms
as otherthing" as we can do a reasonable substitution and I doubt
anyone would have a
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Personally, I'm not bothered if people put "under the same terms
> > as otherthing" as we can do a reasonable substitution and I doubt
> > anyone would have a problem with t
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The problem is, as I said, the terms of the Python license are very
> specific to Python. Not in the way that, say, the LPPL is specific to
> LaTeX, but that the terms of the license specifically identify the PSF,
> and Python. It's like applying a BSD license an
Nicolas Spalinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Nicolas Spalinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >>All the details are available at:
> >>http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
> >
> >
> > The page is not very accessible because [...]
>
Glenn Maynard
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 05:29:24PM -0500, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
> > Please publish essays of this nature somewhere else. I subscribe to this
> > list for the legal discussions, not for moral lectures; [...]
>
> It's always fascinating when someone's first post to a list is to t
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:39:41PM -0500, Charles Fry wrote:
> > My big concern at this time is not how Debian comes down on the PHP
> > License with respect to PHP (and by implication the Pear Group).
> >
> > I am just trying to insist that if we accept this li
Jakub Nadolny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've contacted translator and he agreed that the text could be
> distributed under above Creative Commons public domain dedication text.
>
> What is the next step I should do in this case?
Who added that "publishers ask only" licence?
If it's the translator, t
Mickael Profeta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just got the answer of upstream:
>
> The LICENSE.README file highlight the fact that is is not legal to link
> a non GPL work (meaning proprietary work) to libpreludedb. LibpreludeDB
> itself is GPL. But proprietary program can't link against libpreludeDB
Mickael Profeta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you link LibPreludeDB against other code all of which is itself
> licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2 dated June 1991
> ("GPL v2"), or compatible license, then you may use Libprelude under the
> terms of the GPL v2,as appearing in the f
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
It's reasonable if you want to attach adverts to it and allow others
Matthew Garrett:
> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
> looks astonishingly bad?
Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This was going to be delayed until a proper trademark policy was in place.
> -legal came up with a pretty solid plan for what we wanted for a trademark
> policy; we wanted some review by a lawyer with some knowledge of trademark
> law. We haven't heard ba
Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire?
A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters.
(ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow
the code of conduct and no top-posting. That means you.)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http:
Glenn Maynard
> The FSF has made it clear that it does not believe documentation does
> not need the same freedoms as software, and has even agreed that the
> GFDL is not a Free Software license.
RMS quotes for this position:
"I am not sure if the GFDL is a
free software license, but I don't thin
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
> If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before*
> declaring the license non-free. [...]
I think choice of venue might not follow DFSG 1 because the costs
of even a trivial court case in some venues are considerable
"Glenn L. McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if
> the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and
> library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible
> that the companies modifcations are "hiding
Henning Makholm
> Does the use of a trademark word to refer unambiguously to a specific
> technical protocol in package descriptions and documentation (that is,
> not in marketing materials) even require a trademark license? I know
> that it certainly does not in Denmark, but of course that does no
Olive,
Sorry the previous point was confused. I think the PP was maybe trying
to explain that FSF does not claim FDL is a free software licence (and
also why they do not think all modification is important) but iDunno.
> It tell that freedom to modify is not important for political text
> (which
Olive wrote:
> [...] But I still think we
> must not exagerate. By modifying some files; like logos, the result
> could really abuse people since the very puporse of trademarks are just
> to properly identify people.
I acknowledge that, but they should be controlled by trademark licences.
Copy
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Well, the discussion in March 2003 on debian-legal included the input of an
> >ftpmaster who disagrees, so this definitely isn't a case of a fringe
> >minority on -legal holding sway. That doesn't mean Debian can't reconsider
>
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -0500\">
> > The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A
> > non- free restriction doesn't become free because the FSF decided to
> > use it.
>
> I never suggested that this is the case. I suggested that we should
> perhaps think a b
Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The current draft and BROKEN drafting process are getting a lot of
> > criticism.
>
> The draft is certainly getting critism. Nobody thought that *any* new
> version of the GPL would be easy. That's why there is a public
> discussion process in the first
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just that there has been a period when most debian-legal contributors
> were extremists or outright loons like you, and in this period while
> other developers were not looking these people found a "consensus" to
> change what until then was the widely accepted me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hmm, it seems this was a bit premature. The Savannah admin who was
> looking at my project registration wrote to me:
I think it was useful to post here (all times UTC):
Wed 19:05 kickino decides that GPL-only is not allowed
Wed 21:40 driconf application is cancelled
Thu
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you're having problems accessing the site, contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it's a serious problem and the FSF isn't
> responding, you can e-mail me, and I'll input your comments for you.
I'm currently in discussion with them. They are responding,
but it seems
Simon Huerlimann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I'll advice guys I introduced to
> Debian to also write such a mail once they get into similar situations,
> though.
Unless they can add some new argument as to why a manual under
an FDL-1.2 adware licence actually follows the DFSG, simply
writ
"Ross Bencina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi Don
>
> Can you please identify yourself as someone who has final authority for
> giving this advice.
I will be very surprised if Don satisfies that request. No
debian decision is final: we reserve the right to find or admit
bugs in the future, whether cod
Frank K=FCster asked:
> Does debian-legal think that a
> document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
> the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not?
I don't think a binary file follows the DFSG as a whole if it
contains fonts which do not follow DFSG 2 ("Source Code").
Sorry
"Ross Bencina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can you please identify yourself as someone who has legal qualification to
> make the following assertions. I am concerned that any arbitrary Debian user
> can take offence to our license without reasonable legal grounds. I simply
> do not know who you are.
Frank K=3DFCster asked:
> > Sorry not to give the answer you wanted.
>
> Err, excuse me? [...]
I missed the word "sooner" from the end of that and it seems to
have totally changed the meaning. I didn't mean to suggest that
you wanted a particular answer, just an answer.
Sorry for being unclear,
Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for comments on:
> * 0. Definitions
>
> o 0.1. IBPP
> 'IBPP' is primarily a set of programming interfaces,
> initially written in the C++ language, which makes it easier to develop
> any other programming work which need to communic
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Academic Free License 2.1 has been discussed here before and is
> IIRC non-free, how about version 1.1? License follows: [...]
What software of interest is under this licence?
> Mutual Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate
> automatically and
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:42:00 +0100 Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Before FOSDEM, all videos were released under a MIT-style licence.
>
> and that was a clearly DFSG-free choice.
> I'm personally very happy with that choice and feel it's a perfectly
> adequate license
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:16:13 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> > "Removing credit when requested to do so" is not an issue
> > outlined in Evan Prodromou's summary. The problem was having
> > to remove *all* references to t
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For the "DRM" restriction, I think that "that is not the intended reading
> of the license" applies. The FSF clearly did not intend to keep people
> from using chmod on a GFDL document, and did not intend other problems
> pointed out. [...]
What do you base that cle
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
> a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our
> future --- and possibly re-render our past --- interpretations of the
> DFSG in accordance. It is unfortunate that no thor
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL
> and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being
> invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in
> light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Joe Buck wrote:
>
> >That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years
> >is sometimes painful, as is the necessity to keep a transparent copy
> >available for one year. I did not understand why debian-legal found
> >the latter provision
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> It speaks about "false attribution": I cannot imagine how stating "This
> image is based on the desk image created by Bob" could be considered as
> false attribution...
I repeat: I think it depends where and how "based on the desk image
created by Bob" is
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL ].
>
> That URL says that you can modify the GPL to create your own license,
> then release your software under that license, just don't call it "GPL"
> anymore. It doesn't say, you can take some work th
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Furthermore, I suspect that outside of debian-legal many people had long
> believed that invariant sections were the only issue with the GFDL, and
> that the call for a vote was thus the first exposure to the idea that
> the GFDL had other serious problems.
So,
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Project essentially told us our conclusion â the GFDL is not free â
> is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections. The Project
> did not tell us why. There are several ways we can take this:
>
>1. The Project intends this to be a
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What I should have said is the final authority on the meaning of a
> license is the highest court in the jurisdiction in which you are being
> sued over it. So, yes, for you the final authority is a Belgian court,
> for me its the Supreme Court of the US. If
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
Labelling licences 'free' means little, as the FSF demonstrated
with the ironic name of the FDL. What matters is whether the software
under that licence is free software.
The practical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
> No, I do not. It's obviously not an exception (or it would have said so)
> but a way to officially state what the DFSG means when applied to this
> license, since there has been a wide disagreement in the project about
> this.
The position statement appears to st
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:09:43AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The practical problems beyond the DFSG have always been something
> > we commented in, but not a direct freedom problem themselves. The
> > FSF used to do this too - se
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:28:06AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Not a stupid label in general, but a stupid label for licences. [...]
> > Please let's concentrate on the software: it's worth looking
> > at licence
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
> believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
> the phrase "technical measures" in the context of copyright law.
>From the EUCD (2001/29/EC) Article 6 (3), we have in Engli
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/14/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From the EUCD (2001/29/EC) Article 6 (3), we have in English English:
> >the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or
> >
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 3/14/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [File permissions]
> > Thereby, it can prevent unauthorised copying and meets the above
> > definition, as far as I can see.
>
> Same thing goes for a woo
Jesse van den Kieboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As I tried to do an ITP my package
> (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=347934) got rejected
> because the copyrights weren't in order.[...]
I'm confused. If you listed those three licences in the copyright
file, it seems fine at first gla
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I assert that this interpretation is most faithful to the arguments
> > presented by proponents of Amendment A during the discussion. [...]
I assert that their arguments are not part of the pos
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One thing that springs to mind is to start doing summaries of traffic on
> Debian-legal (again). Its has been tried before, but turns out to be too
> much work for every victim^Wvolunteer so far.
I'm still posting them at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:31:48AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > We happen to have a clarification from one copyright holder (the FSF),
> >
> > Can you remind me where? I found RMS going to ask a lawyer in
> > http://lists.debi
Anthony Towns
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:39:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think that this very thread is an attempt to construct some
> > reasonably self-consistent interpretations that we can ask the
> > developers to decide between.
>
> The developers have already decided. Surely y
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
> > not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
>
> Give an example of one.
The United Kingdom legislation contains f
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
> > > unauthorized copying, in the sense
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My standard ssl-rejection template for that is:
Thanks for sharing that. It seems quite useful. Are the templates
stored anywhere public? Are they kept in sync with
http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html ?
Can you link from that to http://www.debian.org/le
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:44:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's
> > not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before.
>
> How exactly is a br
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While discussions here on the GPLv3 are quite appropriate, concerns
> about the actual draft should be voiced using gplv3.fsf.org and the
> web forms contained therein.
I have reported several defects to the FSF webmasters, but they have
gone silent recently. Ha
"John Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On controlling music, I personally see no issues with this. With out DRM,
> music or other media type content could not be legally made available over
> the Internet.
Sorry, someone has lied to you. Music and other content is regularly made
available over the
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we
> > seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with
> > both letter and spirit
Simon Vallet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1=B0 To willingly edit, distribute to the public, or inform the public
> about, in any form, a device[2] whose obvious purpose is to permit
> unauthorized distribution of protected works
Can someone tell me what 'obvious purpose' means here? Need it be intended
f
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Better yet, why don't we recognize that the phrase "technical measures"
> has a very specific meaning when we're talking about copyright
> protection?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That se
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I have reported several defects to the FSF webmasters, but they have
> > gone silent recently. Have you heard anything about making the
> > comments system any-browser-compatible and gene
Olivier Mascia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Most of the two above should be in README and AUTHORS, in my opinion.
>
> There is no such files with IBPP. Much easier to have everything in a
> single place.
I disagree. The description of the
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 03:22:56PM +0000, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Simon Vallet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 1=B0 To willingly edit, distribute to the public, or inform the public
> > > about, in any form, a
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:25:59PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Still, the person making the private copy is not distributing to anyone.
> > > So
> > > as long as he doesn'
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:50:54AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > What's the difference?
> >
> > One has 'or' and the other has 'and'.
> > Your lack of a
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> > Further: a lot of emphasis is put on whether you are trying to credit
> > Bob with a hand in your work. That is, whether it is a credit.
>
> If it is a credit, it's not an
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Not really: if it said "and" it would be limited to certain cases.
> > The "or" case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
>
> I don't agree,
"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant.
> >
> > Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have
> > writte
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On the other hand, in the hypothetical case we are talking about,
> Charlie doesn't say "This image is created by Bob" or otherwise tries to
> pass it off as a work by Bob.
> He clearly states that "This image is *based on* the desk image created
> by Bob" (emph
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...]
> > MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of "technological measure" and you
> > have not explained why you think that should be ignored.
>
> I did, in the part of the e-mail you snipped.
Yow!
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
> be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
> me to buy everyone in the world a computer? [...]
Only if you are arguing that the FDL clause's mea
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
> > reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that "and"
> > and "or&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode)
> And the license-free graphics files. These probably have a better
> claim to be "part of emacs" and under the general license than the
> rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
> in these files.
Some of these files look like C code
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? [...]
> We can ignore it for your chmod example, because [...]
I disagree, as previously stated.
> > I'm in disbelief t
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding
> it in an executable, then making it available to users of a
> multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled
> (and only granting execute permissions) would constitute a
> violation of the GFDL
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Quote: "We cannot accept GPLv2 only".
That's dumb. Of course they *can*. They just don't want to.
So, Savannah rejects free software now, just because some developers
don't want to let people weld adverts into their manuals? Shame.
[...]
> Other similar projec
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm puzzled: how can you say that "Bob had no part in the *derived*
> work"?
He took no part in creating the new work from it.
> Does Linus Torvalds have no part in linux-image-2.6-*.deb? Debian Linux
> kernels are different from official kernel.org ones, but
601 - 700 of 1495 matches
Mail list logo
