On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:28:23AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
I think that clauses 6, 7, and 8 are applicable to documentation and
data as well as to programs, and I think that they're rules that
Debian should follow for everything
** Jeff Licquia ::
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a
work that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the
things are
Hello Dear Friends,
Today 3 New Boy Gay sites ( For 18+ only ) :
Site 1 : Boy Teens. Nude boys , twinks , first time , suck ,
boypussy fuck .
http://host1.springlads.com/special/offer.php?id=1058828198s=6F70777A3A202463687D776F656125636E7E2C0A000F0B01
Site 2 : LoSexyBoys . 3D young Boys by
On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, I don't? I said that the other guidelines are *applicable* to
non-program works, and *should be applied* to non-program works -- not that,
as presently written, we are obliged to apply them to non-program works.
I'd prefer to approach
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work has a
definition in the statute (in the US case, 17USC).
Hmm. I suppose this is part and parcel of the
** Jeff Licquia ::
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work
has a definition in the statute (in the US case, 17USC).
Hmm. I suppose this
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work has a
definition in the statute (in the US case,
Hi!
Is there any progress on the Debian logo issue?
In this thread[1], the previous DPL (Martin Michlmayr) stated that the
issue was worked on.
But I got no more news since that time.
Now that Sarge is out, there seem to be even more Debian logo images in
(stable) main than before...
[1]
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:42 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
** Jeff Licquia ::
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work
has a
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 12:00 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The message to which I pointed you has a link back into the main fray
(threads with titles like Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev
replacement, GPL and linking, and What makes software
copyrightable anyway?). I've put
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does such compilation in itself give Debian any rights on its own, or is
the compilation seen as non-copyrightable?
The collective work (special case of compilation) that is a Debian CD
is copyrightable. The copyright covers the creative
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse me for asking, but why is this monograph not freely available?
Surely, as a non-lawyer, you have no hope of profiting from it, and
having a succint, linkable statement of your arguments would do wonders
for preventing such go-arounds as
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:52:15 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:28:23AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
I fail to understand how you justify your reading of program as
program in DFSG#2 while you read program as work in the other
guidelines at the same time.
Uh, I
13 matches
Mail list logo
