members and other Debian participants in the Against DRM 2.0 license,
lashing out is the worst way to do that. You catch more flies with honey
than with vinegar.
Good luck,
~Evan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2006/5/28, Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good luck,
Good luck, Evan, goood luck!
Max
On 5/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some people think that only machine opcodes are software, and
that data in other formats are not. The argument, here, is that if
it's not an opcode for the currently running machine, it's not a
machine instruction, and if it's not a machine
On 5/24/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I said that many latin *juridical* terms are universal: the problem is
that you don't know the language of the *right*
No, the problem is that you seem to be using a foreign language
to cloud matters which are really very
On 5/24/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian only distributes software.
If software is defined as executable code, then no. If software is
defined as executable code + related data used by it + documentation +
everything else,
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2006/5/23, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sorry if that's butchery of a foreign language, but this list is usually
in English.
Ah ah! This is in english too (there are many universal juridical latin ter=
ms!):
Latin is not English. Is it universal? I don't
On 5/19/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just
software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since
there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but...
I have not been able to figure out what Max
2006/5/24, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2006/5/23, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sorry if that's butchery of a foreign language, but this list is usually
in English.
Ah ah! This is in english too (there are many universal juridical latin ter=
ms!):
Latin is not
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I said that many latin *juridical* terms are universal: the problem is
that you don't know the language of the *right*
No, the problem is that you seem to be using a foreign language
to cloud matters which are really very simple. [...]
You are closed in your little
On 5/21/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Max
p.s.
Software is not music. Software is not visual art.
Software is a code, a literary work (and Berna Convention consider software
as a literary work).
So software patents are unlogicall.
There are two prevaling views of software which
2006/5/23, David Mattli wrote:
There are two prevaling views of software which I have seen. The view
that software is the opposite of hardware, anything which is in binary
format and the view that software is executable code. The former view
is the most inclusive and the one (in my
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But the question is very easy: any lawyer knows there is a big
difference between
corpus mysthicum (the artwork/the code) and corpus mechanicum (the
carrier/the file).
The copyrightable work is only the artwork/the code!
So, in your language, we require the same
2006/5/23, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sorry if that's butchery of a foreign language, but this list is usually
in English.
Ah ah! This is in english too (there are many universal juridical latin terms!):
In copyright law this led to the distinction between the corpus
mysticum (the work) and
First and foremost, please stop top posting. We Are here to hold
discussions about licencing, and it's very difficult to do so when
your comments are wholy separated from the context in which they
belong. You also should stop using HTML; a gmail account or similar
should enable you to do this if
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that DRM-inhibiting licences are possible, but the
s/are/that follow the DFSG are/ #oops!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t... Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but...
On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote: Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that "Against
the Against DRM license, but...
On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote:
Very fine dissertation but...
Evan, do you know that Against DRM 2.0 does not treat software?? :-)
ROFTL
And why you don't speak about related rights?
unnecessary license... :-)
Max
Evan Prodromou
Ok, you don't know related rights. http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/about_collective_mngt.html#P31_2900 Related rights are the rights that belong to the performers, the producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations in relation to their performances, phonograms and broadcasts
Ok, you have not arguments (and you don't know related rights). End of discussion for me. MaxAndrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Stop posting HTML.2. You != Debian. Debian standards of freedom are defined by theDebian Free *Software* Guidelines and that is basically set in stone.On
, but...Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not justsoftware, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant sincethere isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but...On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote: Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that "Against DR
, but...
Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just
software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since
there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but...
On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote:
Very fine dissertation but...
Evan, do you know that Against DRM
On May 19, 2006, at 16:14, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Of course you know that the anti-DRM
clause makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, right?
Do they necessarily or just the ones so far proposed?
I wrote an essay about it earlier this week, and I think there can be
free anti-DRM
nst DRM license,
but... On 5/20/06, Max Brown wrote: Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that "Against DRM 2.0" does not treat software?? :-) ROFTL And why you don't speak about related rights? unnecessary license... :-) MaxEvan Prodromou wrote: There are
Good work Henri! ;-) I think that an anti-DRM clause (concerning granted rights) can defend the freedom. See "Free Content Definition" (Mako Hill and other people are working on it): http://freedomdefined.org/Definition Max
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low
, Max Brown wrote:
Very fine dissertation but...
Evan, do you know that Against DRM 2.0 does not treat software?? :-)
ROFTL
And why you don't speak about related rights?
unnecessary license... :-)
Max
Evan Prodromou wrote:
There are many platforms that _require_ DRM
cess control system. But also the clause about related rights is very important: for example, If a phonogram-maker produces a CD with songs released under Against DRM 2.0, you can grab and share the CD! This is not allowed by any other license. I think that "Against DRM 2.0" is better than Cre
inhibit more freedoms than they
protect.
I think that Against DRM 2.0 is better than Creative Commons
licenses.
That's an interesting opinion. Of course you know that the anti-DRM
clause makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, right?
There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- notably
Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that "Against DRM 2.0" does not treat software?? :-) ROFTL And why you don't speak about related rights? unnecessary license... :-) MaxEvan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- no
but...
Evan, do you know that Against DRM 2.0 does not treat software?? :-)
ROFTL
And why you don't speak about related rights?
unnecessary license... :-)
Max
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- notably Sony game
consoles and some palmtop
29 matches
Mail list logo
