Hi,
after (barely) catching up by just word-scanning some mails (I don't
have the time to read all my mail - I might not have net access for
the next two weeks again, travelling around in an RV through national
parks), just a few ideas by me:
How about making the tags titled:
Contains files with
On Thursday 09 June 2005 11:10 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
The primary threat is not from the heirs (although that is a threat,
and you don't have control over all your heirs - your parents and
cousins can qualify),
If you're worried about your heirs revoking your
On Thursday 09 June 2005 06:36 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I wrote:
So I think it turns out I was right in the first place: continued
verbatim copying and distribution counts as utilization, and the
only scope for argument is about how much bug-fixing you can do after
termination
On 6/10/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could be right... but I think that Mills is distinguishable on the law
(if not also the facts...). The renewal right under (s)304 and the
termination right under (s)203 are really quite different. For example, the
renewal right is
On 6/10/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
304(c)(6)(A) is exactly the same text as 203(b)(1), and applies only
to termination during the extension term (the 19 years after 28+28)
of a pre-1978 copyright. ...
39 instead of 19 now, of course, courtesy of the Sonny Bono Act.
Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:34:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Bugs in some package already in debian doesn't let another package
with those bugs in as a right, though. It just means we have bugs
to deal with.
Yes. Still Debian's position needs to be
Anthony does an excellent job of making the arguments in favor of the
Linux kernel as a joint work and/or a collective work containing
multiple components under separate authorship; but I simply don't
agree.
The collective work theory doesn't hold water at all (except with
regard to firmware
Michael K. Edwards wrote (with spacing fixed):
2) the 50% rule applies to _authorship_, which connotes (per
Aalmuhammed v. Lee) a degree of creative control so high that, e.
g.,there is no candidate for authorship of the Linux kernel other
than Linus Torvalds;
I've read the cited case, and it
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:34:39AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:34:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Bugs in some package already in debian doesn't let another package
with those bugs in as a right, though. It just means we have bugs
to
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets on
On 6/10/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
at
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoops, I misattributed that message. It's Brett Glass who wrote
that, NOT Theo de Raadt. :-(
And after Googling Brett Glass briefly, I doubt he has much concrete
evidence to back up his claim that RMS
MJ Ray wrote:
I'm not quite sure what sort of statement about patents will
convince ftpmasters. Maybe knowing what patents held by who are
definitely infringed by mplayer is good, especially if none of
them are actively enforced, or maybe it is bad.
ObligatoryIAmNotALawyerDisclosure /
This
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:17:42PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 10:06:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:20:05PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
You've got a problem with this one, because licenses can be combined
conjunctively and disjunctively. So
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:50:03AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Thursday 09 June 2005 11:10 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
The primary threat is not from the heirs (although that is a threat,
and you don't have control over all your heirs - your parents and
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 07:22:59PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:17:42PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 10:06:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:20:05PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
You've got a problem with this one,
On Friday 10 June 2005 11:24 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No, your parents and cousins CANNOT qualify, blood relation is not enough
under the statute. The right of termination flows from you, to your
spouse, then to your children, and final to your estate's executor.
Sounds like a US
Hi everyone,
On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a
new library in the next version. This library, ruby-zoom, is an LGPL Ruby
binding of libyaz. libyaz links to OpenSSL and is, as far as I can tell,
under a
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:32:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
* Andrew Suffield ::
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:17:42PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 10:06:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:20:05PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
20 matches
Mail list logo
