See the www.w3.org, and check out it's problem with P3P technology. W3C
is working to keep this important security technology in the public
domain.
They need everyone with the time to research the prior art for this
technology in order to get the patent claim rejected. It is currently
owned by
This was on debian-devel, I forwarded it here where it is more
appropriately placed.
I'm in finals mode; y'all know what that means.
I'd like to help out and address some legal issues. Save 'em up for next
week and I will address as many as I can.
I have PGP going finally. I'll post my public
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On 26 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
Paul Nathan Puri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would make that argument, but that's just me. RMS made a big mistake by
not defining all
I've been observing a lot of this discussion.
I think that it is fair to say a lot of this discussion of header files,
and linking run-time libraries, etc. is mostly academic.
I think what this discussion centers around is the legal distinction
between an original work of authorship and an
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
In copyright law, there are no defined distinctions. For the most part
you must judge for yourself. The discussion about the GPL, LGPL, etc., is
outside the scope of copyright law, and is governed by Contract law
copyright law and
contract law are easily overlooked in the heat of discussion, if you are
not used to them.
Beside this, I would like a bit clarfification. To make it short, I will
only focus on one point:
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 03:56:38AM -0800, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
Courts enforce
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
However, the author of the GPLed work or the author of the GPL have the
right to change the meaning of 'derivative' to suit their own purposes.
Where does the author get this right? If my work is not a derivative
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RMS is very actively pushing his intentions of the GPL. The GPL has
a preambel, he is giving talks about this subject, answers questions
privately and in public. It is hard to miss his opinions.
He is
That is the correct legal conclusion...
so there ;)
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Bruce Sass wrote:
On 16 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
OK... I read it...
Now I can follow along. Thanks for the info everyone!
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On 16 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
Paul Nathan Puri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the DFSG
Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
A derivative work is any copyrightable work based on another work such
that the derivative can be said
Re: This patented code
Who owns this patent? What is the patent? The patent own can set the
license terms as he/she wishes.
Where you say 'free licenses cannot be revoked': What is your authority
for that statement? The licensor can set the terms and conditions upon
which revocation may be
What is the DFSG and where can I read it?
Thanks...
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 01:28:32PM -0800, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
[stuff
thanks...
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Randy Edwards wrote:
Can some one send me a copy of this license?
I posted this here once, but you must've missed it Paul. Here is
I'm on it. Hey, dub dub dub dub
Just kidding. UW usually takes a while to respond. They told me that
distribution is ok if I append the letter L to the of the file (i.e.
pine-396L_i386.deb. And some legal disclaimer. In the dir where pine
will live in debian.org's site, probably a
I'd like to know more about this. I'm aware of ocs, and their bundle of
web based office stuff. It's good stuff, what are the legal concerns
here? I'd really like to see this bundle in debian...
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can some one send me a copy of this license?
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On 3 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote:
Brian Ristuccia writes:
This sounds a lot like
[GPL splash screen clause]
Notice the 'if's in
Are you against the existence of the non-free directory?
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
UW gave me permission
I'm a law student and willing to help in any way I can. I just subscribed
here. Talk to you soon!
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
://ompages.com
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 19:58:47 -0800, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
I'm a law student and willing to help in any way I can.
One of the most complex legal issues that free software development may be
confronted with is software patents (see e.g. http
20 matches
Mail list logo
