picture008.GIF
Description: Binary data
ROSEMARY WILLIAMS.
UNION BANK PLC.
NO: 104 MARINA ROAD
LAGOS-ISLAND
NIGERIA
E-MAIL ADDRES:
Dear Friend,
My name is Rosemary williams, a staff in my bank. I have this urgent
deal
to transact with you if you can do it. There is an unclaimed deposited
fund of $15 Million in the name of Smith Shaw wit
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 02:55:26PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> I saw an RFP for wpoison from you from some time ago, and I took a quick
> look at the program. It looks like a good idea, but the I am unsure
> about the license. On the wpoison site, one page says "must include a
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 04:39:18AM +0100, Matthew Astley wrote:
>
> No, I meant "pull down" in the sense of stealing the message-id and
> subject line, really. I think I expected some different flavour of
> confusion. 8-}
If you want to replace wpoison's WNPP entry with whatever you are
working o
If I'd known headers would be up on the BTS, I would have started with
the also-valid mail address above. 8-( Never mind.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 12:31:41PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 02:41:16AM +0100, Matthew Astley wrote:
> > I've pulled this down from http://bugs.d
Hi Matthew!
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 02:41:16AM +0100, Matthew Astley wrote:
> I've pulled this down from http://bugs.debian.org/122929 , forgive me
> for the confusion. I'm not a Debian maintainer, but I probably should
> be. 9-)
Are you taking this RFP? In that case please retitle the bug to
st
Thomas wrote:
> Where are you proposing we place that hyperlink?
I just recieved word that the program appears to be a non-graphical one
and as such, the placement of the hyperlink is indeed a problem, the
burden of solving which I'd prefer to place on the copyright holder.
Conclusively, an inq
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The license require no such thing.
> What it does require is that the image is displayed, hyperlinked (i.e.
> placed within hyperlink tags) to the specific page.
Where are you proposing we place that hyperlink?
Thomas wrote:
> The non-free archive contains hyperlinks, and the license requires
> that those hyperlinks include the image.
The license require no such thing.
What it does require is that the image is displayed, hyperlinked (i.e.
placed within hyperlink tags) to the specific page.
It's a very
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My own interpretation is that it can be distributed in the non-free
> archive. It fails DFSG 3 by not allowing removal of the hyperlink; but as
> long as the hyperlink is there, I don't see any problem for non-free.
The non-free archive contains hyperl
> You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution
> which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo.
I agree that it doesn't make any actual difference with regard to
freeness; I was just refuting Brandens insinuation of ignorance on behalf
of the license writer.
> Tha
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20011216T112830-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license.
>
> Would you please give a reference to it?
>From tex.web:
% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved.
% Co
On 20011216T112830-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Um, no, TeX has a perfectly clear license.
Would you please give a reference to it?
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
tutkimusavustaja / research assistant
Jyväskylän yliopisto, tietotek
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20011215T235408-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > (The canonical example here is TeX
> > which has such a restriction.)
>
> TeX is already a special case as it really does not have a clear
> license, but everyone still treats it as free
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Re-read. It says "image should be inside the hyperlink", not the other
> way around.
You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution
which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo. That's not
trademark protection, it's rather
> > > # Also, the official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an
> HTML
> > > # hyperlink so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo
> image
> > > # will be directed/linked to the Wpoison home page at:
> >
> > Please keep CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden wrote:
> The lic
On 20011215T235408-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> (The canonical example here is TeX
> which has such a restriction.)
TeX is already a special case as it really does not have a clear
license, but everyone still treats it as free software.
(This was the case at least when I last looked at it,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This license fails DFSG 3 and I would recommend to the author that he
> use the right tool for the job. If he wants trademark protection in the
> Wpoison logo, he should apply for it. Of course, any party that
> attempts to use laws other than copyr
I've been following the discussion, and it looks like wpoison, if
determined free, will have the dubious distinction of being the first
program in main (that I know of) with a clickwrap license that attempts
to control use. (namely, it requires every user [0] to display the wpoison
logo and link
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 12:50:54AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 27,30c27,34
> < # software or any derivative or modified version thereof. Also, the
> < # official Wpoison logo itself must be include in an HTML hyperlink
> < # so that any usser clicking on any part of the logo image wi
Hi!
Could you take a look at wpoison? (RFP #122929)
I guess it's DFSG compliant but just to make sure...
I've also asked the author for permission to use PNG versions
of his official GIF, do you think the modified license is okay too?
These are the changes for the new license:
27,30c27,34
< #
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:23:44 Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>> No no. You have the proper version now.
>>
>> The `p' suffix mean `Perl Version'.
>>
>> (There was once upon a time a C language version, but that has been
>> retired now.)
>
>ok, i leave
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:23:44 Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> No no. You have the proper version now.
>
> The `p' suffix mean `Perl Version'.
>
> (There was once upon a time a C language version, but that has been
> retired now.)
ok, i leave the p. so the current version is 1.07p or 1.7p?
> Tha
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:23:44PM -0800, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> >by the way, could you send me your wpoison.words file? i don't have any
> >wordlist
> >to include in the package.
>
> You should not need a words list.
>
> On UNIX systems, the words should b
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>I have set the template message as you told me.
Good. Thanks.
>ah sorry, i downloaded the latest version some days ago and it reads
>"1.7p",
>not 1.07 as you told me, have you released a newer one or is it a typo?
No no. You have the pr
Hello,
I have set the template message as you told me.
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:56:09 Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> >(the copyright file always will contain your license and some notes
> >explaining that a the logo is mirrored in /usr/share/wpoison/)
> >
> >> The current version of Wpoison is wr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you wrote:
>
>Hi Ronald,
>
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:01:54 Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>> So will you please set up the packages so that the installer sees the
>> part of the copyright that says that he/she must put the icon and link
>> on their home page?
>
>ok,
Hi Ronald,
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:01:54 Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> So will you please set up the packages so that the installer sees the
> part of the copyright that says that he/she must put the icon and link
> on their home page?
ok, do you want a textual copy of it? or do you prefer some
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you wrote:
>> I like having more publicity for my work, but Wpoison is only a very
>> imperfect method of combatting spam. I am working now on better things.
>
>so you think wpoison is somewhat obsolete? if you're working on another
>free CGI to combat spam, I'd b
Hello Ronald,
On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 20:34:58 Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> I am replying both to the sender address on your mail, and also to the
> other one you specified ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as well as the address
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] as you requested.
>
> My apologies if that causes you to rece
Dear Robert,
I am replying both to the sender address on your mail, and also to the
other one you specified ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as well as the address
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as you requested.
My apologies if that causes you to receive duplicate copies of this
reply.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hello,
Wpoison looks like a very nice script, would you like it to be packaged and
included in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution?
I've analised your license, BSDish with an additional advertising clausse,
and it appears to be free software as with our Free Software Guidelines
(http://www.debian.
Hello,
Wpoison looks like a very nice script, would you like it to be packaged and
included in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution?
I've analised your license, BSDish with an additional 4th clausse, and
it appears to be free software as with our Free Software Guidelines
(http://www.debian.org/socia
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
When an email harvester robot enters your webserver to get email
addresess for spaming, executing your wpoison script would
caught it into an endeless loop while providing it with thousands
of fake email addresses to poison its database.
Download from:
http://www.
34 matches
Mail list logo
