Sorry, but the email address to which you have sent a message is
no longer in use.
To contact NewsNow, please visit our web site at:
http://www.NewsNow.co.uk/contact/
Best regards,
The NewsNow Team
NewsNow Publishing Limited
Tel: +44 (0)20 7471 0400
* Matthew Palmer:
Wrong for Germany. Our analogue of copyright law does cover
databases.
Mechanical compilations, as well as those requiring creative effort?
Mechanical compilations as well. Of course, most of our codified
moral rights don't apply to them. 8-)
Four of them (with NonCommercial or NoDerivatives elements) are clearly
not intended to be DSFG-free. It seems to the untrained eye that the
other two (Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike) are. The problems we
have with these licenses are more or less ones of clarity and wording
rather than
Hi all,
My understanding is that the last known patent on LZW compression held
by Unisys, in Canada, expires tomorrow, July 7th 2004. I plan to ask my
sponsor, Bas Zoetekouw, to upload a version of cernlib with compressed
GIF creation support added back in soon afterwards. (This may be
delayed
On 7/6/2004, tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My doubt is: dfsg should cover the 4 freedom of fsf. How does CC respect the
availability of source code?
I mean FDL does something like that with the provision of a copy in an open
format when you distribute a certenly amount of copies.
Can we
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 09:23, tom wrote:
My doubt is: dfsg should cover the 4 freedom of fsf.
I think this is a non-issue. The DFSG is the DFSG, nothing more or less.
How does CC respect the availability of source code?
The licenses neither enforce nor prevent a licensee's distribution of
Now, the whole idea of applying the same freeness criteria to what I
call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me,
Can we give it up? We've had at least a year of discussion on this
subject, then a vote, then long flame-wars all over the place, then
another vote, since people
I'm not really familiar with debian's release management, as has been
pointed out to me with the strange effects of GR votes, so I'll only
cover the debian-legal aspects. Please reply to debian-legal alone,
asking for cc if you need it.
On 2004-07-06 18:17:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett [EMAIL
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:15, Evan Prodromou wrote:
So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
licenses:
So, I've started this summary,
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.sxw
(and, yes, I'll convert it to HTML and plain text ASAP), and I've
included the
MJ Ray wrote:
Surely the opinions of any large group will include extremes? The
larger the group, the more likely that some will be relatively
extreme. I think this is just a symptom of people being unused to
seeing a project try to harness a large public participation.
Sorry, that wasn't
On 2004-07-06 20:15:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
included the three main arguments why Attribution 2.0 is non-free
At least in this context, we should say instead that software released
under it alone will not be free software. It usually doesn't make
sense to say a
Also, note that at least Australia and England extend copyright protection
to industrious collections (i.e., 'sweat of the brow' databases such as
white pages). See, e.g.,
in Australia - Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation
Limited
Hi,
The CEA[1], the CNRS[2] and the INRIA[3] have released a GPL-compatible
free software license. It seems to me that it is an very important move
: the CNRS and the INRIA are the two research institutes doing research
in computing. I know INRIA has distributed ocaml, mldonkey(!), and
scilab,
MJ Ray writes:
As such, if a copyright permission condition is an everything is
forbidden except X trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates
other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe
the trademark: it would mean we have no copyright permissions on the
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 03:15:25PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner
inconsistent
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:21:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What do you mean by solid legal argument? Do we need to find a
lawyer to check my reasoning?
Lawyers have told people that releasing images of their trademarks under
a free license would potentially harm their trademarks. As a
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 15:47, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-06 20:15:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
included the three main arguments why Attribution 2.0 is non-free
At least in this context, we should say instead that software released
under it alone will not be free
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My french is
rusty, though, I shouldn't try to interpret contracts. 8-
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My french is
rusty,
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 05:18:44PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Section 4a) allows the author to forbid reference to the user. Section
4b) requires authorship credit.
If the author uses the revocation clause, it's not explicitly stated
that the licensee is absolved of the requirements in
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:21:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What do you mean by solid legal argument? Do we need to find a
lawyer to check my reasoning?
Lawyers have told people that releasing images of their trademarks under
a free license would potentially harm
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Not much we can do about that, if true. Sounds like the old free
software destroys intellectual property noise.
For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, people still listen to us.
If we can provide a semi-convincing argument that trademarks don't need
copyright
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 17:18, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Section 4a) allows the author to forbid reference to the user. Section
4b) requires authorship credit.
s/the user/themselves/
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wikitravel (http://wikitravel.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, Abiword is a trademarked name; Abisource requires that
modified versions of Abiword are either called Abiword Personal, or
that they don't have Abiword in the name. This is a perfectly
reasonable application of a trademark to Free
Hi guys,
Last year I posted an analysis in two parts[1][2] of the then-draft version
of the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). In December, Frank Küster
asked what the status of the LPPL was[3], and I told him I didn't know[4].
Well, that same month, the LaTeX Project folks finalized the
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, Abiword is a trademarked name; Abisource requires that
modified versions of Abiword are either called Abiword Personal, or
that they don't have Abiword in the name. This is a perfectly
reasonable application
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum:
IANAL, but the license[4] look quite ok for me, even if the part about
GPL compatibility seems a bit unclear.
It looks like a fallback close similar to the LGPL. My
On 2004-07-07 00:19:57 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
posted:
FREE SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT CeCILL
First off, I was told again today that French has no direct equivalent
word for software. Logiciel only means program. I've no idea
what other words don't translate. Basically:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't really think that trademarks fit with the spirit of free
software (despite it being possible to use them), and I'd raise
serious questions about why they're trying to use them at all. Raising
artificial barriers to
On 2004-07-06 20:21:39 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] things like the desert island test are excessive.
Excessive in what way? Yes, it's an extra concept, but it's usually
easier to explain than does not follow DFSG 1, 3, 5, 6 and/or 7, for
a significant number of
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:22:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Here we go again. Are these you will use *my* court terms acceptable
or not? :-/
It also has a bogus breathing, eating or talking means you agree to
this clause, and it's annoyingly long for a free license.
If there aren't any problems
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't really think that trademarks fit with the spirit of free
software (despite it being possible to use them), and I'd raise
serious questions about why they're trying to use them at all. Raising
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-06 20:21:39 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lawyers have told people that releasing images of their trademarks under
a free license would potentially harm their trademarks. [...]
If asked a suitable question, I expect some lawyers to say that talking
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:22:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Here we go again. Are these you will use *my* court terms acceptable
or not? :-/
Not, in my opinion.
It also has a bogus breathing, eating or talking means you agree to
this clause, and it's annoyingly long for a
34 matches
Mail list logo
