On 5/9/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I have to admit it didn't occur to me that anyone might think my
opinion represented an opposite consensus. More widely recognized
debian-legal personages such as Raul and Andrew
On 5/9/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I read it, what you've said here is that you'll take legal action
against people who respond to your email messages in a fashion
you don't approve of. ...
Oh, and if it helps; feel free to respond directly to me in any
fashion not otherwise
Batist Paklons wrote:
This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you're objecting to the that is to say phrase,
Jakob Bohm wrote:
Sorry, I misspoke; contracts are construed against the offeror, not
against the drafter, when there's a distinction. The offeror had the
option of proposing language as explicit as he or she chose, so
ambiguities are as a matter of law construed against his or her
interests.
The thing is that a great errrect1on is provided for you exactly when you want.
http://ghostly.tabsyouneed.info/?fixedxtvuydequeueszvpDustin
You have not tried Cialis yet?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/8/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only time a collective work is not a derivative work is when the
the collective work lacks sufficient originality under copyright law
to be granted separate copyright protection.
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Succinctly describing the flaw:
1. '' a work based on the Program means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law '' -- this is a definition. It
defines what the expression work based on the Program means
throughout the
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on, Raul: a collective work is NEVER a derivative work. Never ever
ever.
What's this? Proof by repeated assertion?
A collective work CONTAINS another works, and is copyrightable per se if
it is intelectually novel by virtue of its
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that a work based on the Program is a derivative work under
copyright law, and then says that is to say, a work
containing..., which is NOT a re-statement of a derivative work
On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:00:12 +0200 David Schmitt wrote:
On Friday 06 May 2005 02:28, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi,
I recently came across ths Artistic 2 (2.0beta5) license at:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/LICENSE/Artistic-2
I couldn't find any previous reference to a DFSG discussion
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:25:46PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Batist, I think you are mistaken about the meaning of the any later
version copyright license... the terms are precisely '' This program is
free software; you can
I want to revisit this one point.
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not true under the Berne Convention or under 17 USC as I read
them; indeed, the term collective works and its superset
compilations appear to be explicitly reserved in 17 USC 101 (1976
and later)
13 matches
Mail list logo
