Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:50:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the difference?
One has 'or' and the other has 'and'.
Your lack of attention to detail is troubling.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious with an obtuse, glib
Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've tried contacting Janusz Nowacki on 28 Apr 2005 and 14 Sep 2005
but received no answer. He's obviously alive, so this could be caused
either by his lack of time or a
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 + 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 inaccurate or false one, AFAICT.
If it is
Adam McKenna writes:
But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to
obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except
yourself.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. You are insisting
on a basically insane literal
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:14:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to
obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except
yourself.
I understand what you're trying to say, but
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, 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, for reasons already mentioned.
It seems fairly obvious that other people may have access to a copy
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, 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, for reasons already mentioned.
According to a quick browse of the
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, 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, for
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
Since I've explained twice now that the use of and or or in that
sentence
does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately
misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me.
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:55:15 + MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 + 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
Adam McKenna writes:
As a legal excercise, maybe. Practically, it does not. Consider the
following two statements:
If you don't have permission to make personal copies from the law (say, you
live in a jurisdiction that does not have the concept of fair use), then you
have to obey the
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If the license said make and distribute, then that would exclude the
technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in
itself let you make personal copies without obeying the license.
Right, unless the copy was
Adam McKenna writes:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If the license said make and distribute, then that would exclude the
technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in
itself let you make personal copies without obeying the license.
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:39:56 + MJ Ray wrote:
I think that's the one. There are several often called MIT. Someone
has moved the copy on X.org to which
http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ links - has anyone
a new URL besides the failed open source initiative, please?
AFAIK, the two
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:04:36PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
The license says You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute. It does not say ... control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Just use dvdrtools instead.
ITYM dvd+rw-tools,
That's what I use for burning DVDs.
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:39:56 + MJ Ray wrote:
I think that's the one. There are several often called MIT. Someone
has moved the copy on X.org to which
http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ links - has anyone
a new URL besides the failed open
Adam McKenna wrote:
That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one
copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on
multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more
than one copy at a time,
The plaintiff needs to
Adam McKenna wrote:
The exact text of the FDL is:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or
further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
For the purposes of this clause, there are two kinds of copies that can
be made.
1) Copies that are made, but
Adam McKenna wrote:
Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read
or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it
is not equivalent to having access.
If A depends on B then not doing/having B prevents A.
If you are not allowed to prevent A, then you
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and
distribute'.
An argument could be made that a person making a
copy available for other people to read under restricted
circumstances is not distributing that copy.
Note, however, that only
On 18 Mar 2006 22:46:24 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was rather obvious that I meant that in the sense of the
original scenario, and not in the general case.
I'm not sure what's not obvious in what I said.
You claim that the GFDL can not be taken to apply where
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
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
written it oneself) and in I didn't find
On 3/19/06, Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of
freedom to merely distributable by Debian.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Your suggestion is a red herring.
Raul Miller writes:
Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is
governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does
copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work?
I disagree with your assertion that copyleft goes beyond what is
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:47:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read
or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it
is not equivalent to having access.
If A depends on B then not
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:43:38PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I went through the RC bugs which apply to etch and are older than one year.
This is a rather disturbing list, as you would expect from the age of the
bugs.
In most cases I
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:28:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If I use rcp to copy a work from one machine to another (both which are
owned an exclusively used by me), this is making a copy but not
distributing.
If someone sniffs your connection and obtains a copy of the document, then
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use
one
copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies
on
multiple machines, someone would have to *prove*
30 matches
Mail list logo
