* Don Armstrong d...@debian.org [090117 20:01]:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to
what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain
(NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in
Andreas Tille ti...@ravel.debian.org wrote:
--- start of mailing list specific part --
http://people.debian.org/~tille/liststats/authorstat_legal.pdf
The quite often observed wave-shaped pattern and only a view
activists left to discuss legal problems.
I don't understand what that
I have a small software project which I intend to release soon.
I have already looked at several free (or, in some cases, claimed to
be free) licenses, but I have not found one which I found convincing.
What I am looking for:
- Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
Hello,
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:35 +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
What I am looking for:
- Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
software.
- No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for
derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow
Heya
David Paleino wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:35 +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
What I am looking for:
- Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
software.
- No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for
derivatives to advertize,
Mark Weyer wrote:
I have a small software project which I intend to release soon.
I have already looked at several free (or, in some cases, claimed to
be free) licenses, but I have not found one which I found convincing.
What I am looking for:
- Copyleft with source requirement, but should
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
I suspect analysis by month and by volume would be more illuminating. I
took a look at the code, but there's not much explanation. Is it
possible to add volumes in an easy way?
Sorry the code is crude at best - I will rewrite it from scratch
if this
Sorry if this breaks threading. Subscription was not as quick as I thought.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
- Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
software.
- No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote:
[...]
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
- Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
software.
[...]
Maybe I should have been less terse.
- With source requirement I meant that source
In message 20090118174305.620e0088@firenze.linux.it, Francesco
Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
- Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
software.
[...]
Maybe I should have been less terse.
- With
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
So if I use a little bit of copyleft code in my program I have to
make the whole lot free?
If you don't want to require this, you don't want copyleft. There's no
license that I'm aware of that distinguishes between little bit, but
still
On Sunday 18 January 2009 02:29:22 am Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Don Armstrong d...@debian.org [090117 20:01]:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to
what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain
Thanks for your reply.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote:
[...]
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote:
- Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:16 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
You're welcome! :)
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent.
I think what you refer to, is what GNU calls strong
* Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090118 19:37]:
The US has done all it can on this via its domestic laws... the relevent
section being:
--
§ 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the
On Sunday 18 January 2009 03:24:52 pm Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090118 19:37]:
The US has done all it can on this via its domestic laws... the relevent
section being:
--
§ 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes:
Well, lucky for us, I happen to be a trained lawyer. Although, in
the interest of full disclosure, I have not paid by bar dues and
thus am not an actual factual lawyer, but I play one on the internet
from time to time.
Have I said recently how grateful
On Sunday 18 January 2009 10:00:01 pm Ben Finney wrote:
Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes:
Well, lucky for us, I happen to be a trained lawyer. Although, in
the interest of full disclosure, I have not paid by bar dues and
thus am not an actual factual lawyer, but I play one on the
18 matches
Mail list logo
