On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 00:27, Russell Nelson wrote:
Netscape v. Specht turned on exactly that issue. Netscape lost
because they didn't make it clear to Specht that he was agreeing to a
contract.
IIRC, Netscape v. Specht concerned rights outside the exclusive rights
of the copyright holder, so
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 19:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:12:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Unfortunately, DFSG doesn't discuss what sorts of modifications can be
restricted.
Implicitly, no sort of restriction on modification is permitted, except
those already
On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 22:28, Sam Hartman wrote:
David == David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I think that a logo is beyond a copyright notice that 2 (c)
David requires the preservation of. Why not suggest switching to
David the AGPL?
Does that actually meet DFSG?
I
On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 15:44, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 07:03 am, John O Sullivan wrote:
I would welcome any comments on this, as would the a
href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]author/a.
IANAL, but my comments follow...
I'd recommend that the author carefully
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:05, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
I'm intending to package PyDDR (http://www.clickass.org/~tgz/pyddr), a
Dance Dance Revolution simulator for UNIX systems. The basic idea behind
DDR is that you have a pattern of button presses (which you press with
your feet, hence dancing)
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 20:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Courts care not about the technical details of *how* you copy, but the
fact that you copy. You cannot copy qmail *at all* if you are making a
modified binary with it. This means you cannot
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 07:57, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
* The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
* in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Portions of the Software includes also the binary? Nobody include such
notices in binary!
FSF does
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 16:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Martin Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry,
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:27:29PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
- the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
domain. Er, modulo the small
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 15:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
change.
*When*
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 18:20, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:04:22PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 17:45, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:54:27PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
All
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 17:45, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:54:27PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
All portions of governed files not labeled otherwise are owned by Hans
Reiser, and by adding your code to it, widely
Q.6:
: /* inflate.c -- Not copyrighted 1992 by Mark Adler
: version c10p1, 10 January 1993 */
Not copyrighted == public domain?
In practise, yes. In theory, not copyrighted is nonsense as
copyright is not a verb, nor an action that someone applies to the
code. A court
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
All portions of governed files not labeled otherwise are owned by Hans
Reiser, and by adding your code to it, widely distributing it to
others or sending us a patch, and leaving the sentence in stating that
licensing is governed by the
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 02:22, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:33:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
My suggestion is that you ask the FSF for their more detailed advice.
What contact address is best for this
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 15:40, Joe Moore wrote:
Derek Gladding said:
Hypothetical question...
Hypothetical answer below...
If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell, then:
- piped the whole of Usenet through it for a couple of weeks
- automatically removed all sequences of
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 20:50, Derek Gladding wrote:
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 05:30 pm, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 15:40, Joe Moore wrote:
Derek Gladding said:
Hypothetical question...
Hypothetical answer below...
If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell
I've been discussing this with the FSF's outside counsel, Dan Ravicher.
I have some ideas for how to generate a new word-list if we do end up
needing one, but I don't want to discuss them until I've talked with a
lawyer. I'll probably get some sort of final answer with Dan tomorrow
at the GPL
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 00:36, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 19:34, David Turner wrote:
I found a case which says that blueprints are components in the sense
meant by (c) (well, actually (f), but it's the same language) above:
Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register, No. 98-CV-485C
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 17:17, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looking at it from a larger viewpoint, the idea that merely distributing
source code and saying, don't use this gets around patent law is
fairly silly.
Not really. Particularly if in fact no one
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 15:30, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 13:08, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
You have to take it out of whatever Debian distributes. I can
download the the
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 16:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
An intellectual decision is not necessarily an act of originality.
You're making a sweat-of-the-brow argument. That doesn't hold water
in the U.S. I'd appreciate cites of statues in countries where it does,
or English-language discussions
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 18:35, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 15:58, David Turner wrote:
35 USC 271 says:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States or imports
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 16:33, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I know nothing about patent law, US or otherwise, but I keep seeing
programs that are made freely available as source code, but not as
binaries, because they implement patented algorithms.
I believe that this, like the warez scene
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 11:03, Fredrik Persson wrote:
Is this a loophole in the GPL? If my question above is answered with
Jim, I think it is. If the answer is Jill, it most likely is not.
So...
What do you all say about this?
I say that the answer is Jim, but that this is not as serious a
On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 17:58, Ville Muikkula wrote:
The apsfilter license is a combination of the GNU GPL and postcardware:
You are permitted to use the apsfilter package in the terms of the GNU
General Public License. If you use apsfilter for business or home
purposes, then please send
On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 11:17, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
Software Patent is legal in some countries (like US and Japan) and
is illegal in Europe (in the article 52 of the Munich Convention). If you
care
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:35, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
David Turner writes:
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
decisions yet.
Added in LPPL3:
{+If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 18:35, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:29, David Turner wrote:
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me
101 - 131 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
