On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
So yes, inquiring minds want to know.
And this inquiring mind is now satisfied as to what probably pays
RMS's rent lately -- the ~$268K Takeda Award he received in 2001.
(You couldn't keep a family in Cambridge for four years
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:24:11 +1000, Simon Wright wrote:
It's a simple, generic stroke of rough charcoal, a standard brush
shape that ships with Adobe Illustrator. Actually, it's one of the
five defaults that appear in the brushes pallete when you begin any
new document
I don't see any
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:24:11 +1000, Simon Wright wrote:
It's a simple, generic stroke of rough charcoal, a standard brush
shape that ships with Adobe Illustrator. Actually, it's one of the
five defaults that appear in the brushes pallete when you begin any
new
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, one could wonder who was first. I'm not blatantly assuming
Adobe just took the swirl without looking at our copyright, but then
it's not entirely impossible either.
It ought to be possible for someone to dig up a pre-1999 version
Scripsit Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that this wave of other usages of the swirl is fairly recent
(or is that a perception on my side?)
The first case I remember is
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/07/msg00167.html
On the
** Raul ::
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
cash flows
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me
both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less
reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and economics.
Misrepresentations and charlatanry draw
On 8/3/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded,
the FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian
should re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
Why?
Personally, I've quoted this
Hello
We got thousands software at low low price
visit us now
erevansoft.net
visor
On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you
fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what
your references to all kinds of precedents and such are worth.
You've got a fair point, in that RMS
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:44 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
How many participants in the KDE/Qt brouhaha actually cited relevant
case law?
I recall that quite a bit of case law was discussed. Perhaps the
debian-legal archives could tell you more.
In any case, there's a perfectly good
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale. He has been
admitted to the bar in New York and before the Supreme Court. He has
clerked in district court and for Justice Thurgood Marshall. He has
held a professorship of law
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale.
It is. And, from my perspective, it completely destroys your
credibility.
What makes your opinion more credible than that
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me
both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less
reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 13:11 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you
fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what
your references to all kinds of
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It could be the case that everyone who disagrees with you whom you think
should know better has ulterior motives. However, I think you need to
consider the possibility that you simply do not understand the subject
matter as well as you think
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I may not be much in the legal department, but you are now commenting on
a field I am trained in. Suffice it to say that you have not thought
seriously about the implications of your conflation of ethics and
economics--or that if you have, then
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've got a fair point, in that RMS doesn't see his arguments as
preaching economic superiority; and certainly many commentators have
contrasted RMS's ethical perspective with, say, ESR's economic
perspective. I don't entirely agree with
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:23:46 +0200 Alexis Papadopoulos wrote:
Thanks for your answer...
You're welcome, but, please, do *not* reply to me while Cc:ing the list,
as I didn't ask you to do so. I am a debian-legal subscriber and I'd
rather avoid receiving replies twice... Thanks.
Mmmh, you
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, there's a perfectly good argument that for
Debian to piss off the FSF is not a good idea whether or not they have
a legal leg to stand on. I personally would be ashamed to lend my
good name to their conduct in recent years,
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:52 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded, the
FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian should
re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
If you can prove that the FSF
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 15:21 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
No, I just explained where I was coming from in characterizing RMS's
public posture as preach[ing] the economic superiority of the free
software system. How you can call this an attempt to shut down the
debate is beyond me. If you
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't
exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe
communication between people -- that it's impossible to codify
property rights protecting them. There will
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 01:40:42PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 8/2/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That RMS gets paid for all the speeches he gives would indeed be news.
I have first-hand knowledge that he follows invitations to speak about
free software when provided
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider it a grievous error to claim that RMS preach[es] the
economic superiority of the free software system. You were not calling
for an inquiry of any kind in that statement; you were simply snarking.
And you were called out for making an
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't
exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe
communication between people -- that it's
On 8/3/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would again be news to me. I've just given two talks at LinuxTag
(the biggest Linux-related event in Europe) and all I got was two nights
in a hotel room. That's what all the speakers get, some do get part of
or all of their travel
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's probably a lesson in here somewhere.
information is also a term used to describe how people
communicate.
Indeed, among other things; and it is a term sufficiently broad and
vague as to have very little utility in law.
You try to draw
28 matches
Mail list logo
