clear difference between credits,
which don't have anything to do with the copyright, licensing, or
warranty of a work, and copyright, licensing, or warranty statement of
a work. We have traditionally been lenient in the application of the
DFSG to verbiage related to these three elements.
ution of such
works will likely endanger the authors.
Don ARmstrong
--
"I was thinking seven figures," he said, "but I would have taken a
hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person." [All for a moldy bottle of
tropicana.]
-- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14
with requiring credit for your
work be placed in such and such a place with such and such wording.
Credit is automatically included in the copyright declaration. Any
other requirements for its inclusion necessarily limit the use of a
work.
Don Armstrong
--
Filing a bug is probably not going
d party submits the patch to Best Practical Solutions, LLC.
Licenses that require the assignment of copyrights to the author of a
work are clearly not free. I'm fairly comfortable with considering
clauses that do assignment without the expressed approval of the
author of the patch non-free as well.
he FSF
does for contributions to GNU projects...]
If possible, I'd strongly suggest that someone suggest to companies
and licensors with similar terms follow the lead of the FSF. It's the
intelligent way to avoid a SCO like case that actually has merits.
Don Armstrong
--
Perso
main is a question for the maintainer
and ftpmaster (and if you disagree with their assessment, the tech
ctte or developers, respectively.)
Don Armstrong
--
This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related
program activities, and the letter G.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
ined
whether or not the license is capable of being free, irregardless of
the outcome of a game of legal roulette.
Don Armstrong
1: Not to say that we shouldn't discuss it for our edification, of
course.
--
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars
has t
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For copyleft licenses, at least, the promise of future derivative
> > works being released with source under similar terms could quite
> > easily be argued to fulfill cons
This should probably be clarified in the interest of sanity for those
combining works under the CeCILL with works under the GPL.
Don Armstrong
--
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars
has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost
anything.
t respond.
[Frankly, I find the current name for the desert island test rather
descriptive... but then again, I like The Far Side.]
Don Armstrong
--
N: Why should I believe that?"
B: Because it's a fact."
N: Fact?"
B: F, A, C, T... fact"
N: So you're saying that I s
a specific license
is not good enough for Debian and invented a "This license is evil"
test specifically to exclude it.
Could you perhaps explain the reasoning behind this statement?
Don Armstrong
1: Although, you might consider everyone who is using these tests an
idiot who wouldn&#
the DFSG.
While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely desert
isle hacking away with their solar powered computer, drinking
coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be silly, the rights
that such a gedanken is protecting are anything but.
Don Armstrong
--
I don't care
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Monday 12 July 2004 11:45 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely
> > desert isle hacking away with their solar powered computer,
> > drinking coconuts, and recieving message
beyond pure
> academic discussion.
Please do.
[If you could also provide a cite to the 2nd Restatement of Contracts,
that would also be appreciated. I'm not quite sure where it falls into
the context of US legislation or case laws.]
Don Armstrong
--
"Because," Fee-5 ex
ention avoiding the factual and linquistic innacuracies that crop
up in successive revisions. [Moreso in cases like the law where the
language is paramount than science, but they exist there also.]
Don Armstrong
--
A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very
easy to govern.
ing the Affero license.
Of course, I think the FAQ should point out the original name of the
test somewhere in 9b, as early discussions refer to it as such.
Don Armstrong
--
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing
mpts that I've seen (and made myself) so far have had
rather serious problems.
Don Armstrong
--
Q: What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the
Experience of the Past Million Years?
A: Nothing.
-- Bokonon _The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon_ (Vonnegut _Cats Cradle_)
http://w
s worse from this point on.
I'd strongly suggest that we aren't able to distribute software under
this license even in non-free.
Don Armstrong
1: Yes, they seem to want to not violate "people under the age of X
may not access the internet" laws... but they state it in one of the
7;t link with OpenSSL.
If you've actually got the time and inclination, I would suggest
instead modifying the OpenSSL related part to work with gnutls
instead. [I've heard there are some wrappers which make this rather
easy, but I haven't done it myself.]
Don Armstrong
--
Dr
solve this situation, do not hesitate
to ask.
Don Armstrong
1: "All my editing work is done in the literate programs." in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=244276&msg=24
2: If I were the package maintainer, I'd also want to be able to build
from upstream source j
the context of the DFSG. Whose freedom is being protected?
Whose freedom is being abridged? Are these freedoms that are required
by the DFSG?
Don Armstrong
1: I think "freedom" is a misnomer here... consider this a privilege
or ability.
--
I leave the show floor, but not before a pac
thinking about two separate cases
where the privacy of the author overrides the good of the community.
[In the instance that I mention, I'd argue that the spirit of DFSG 9
applies, even though the letter may not.]
Don Armstrong
--
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democra
ead of signing over the copyright.
I just heavily dislike licenses that seem to have automatic licensing
(or copyright assignemnt) as a part of the license. That is, where if
you disagree with licensing or assigning your copyrighted works at
terms more lenenient than the original license you can only
hought yourself? [Or, to put it another way,
how would you define where the line should be drawn in this particular
case?]
Don Armstrong
1: I erroneously mentioned DFSG 10 in the previous messages, iirc.
--
If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
-- Lowery's Law
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
ng difficulties, then why is that a license problem?
Because it is the license itself is playing a large part in generating
the problem, as opposed to a local law or coincidence itself.
Don Armstrong
--
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come.
-- Tussman's Law
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> >I think you're limiting it to explicit discrimination, whereas I feel
> >it should apply to effective discrimination as well.
>
> So where does this stop?
Presumably where the good to free softwa
o be thoughtfully applied to a
license. For many of these cases, there's no known bright line test,
where X is free, and Y is non free. [See the OSD v DFSG threads for
more examples...]
As always, if anyone can codify such a bright line test, please, do
so. It only makes discussing software
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> >None of it, apparently, which is one of the reasons why the DFSG is
> >a set of guidelines, not a mere definition.
>
> That's a convenient argument for ignoring whichever bits of the DFSG
> you don&
, it may not be possible for such
modifications to be made, but the license itself should not restrict
that ability in jurisdictions without moral rights. [Nor should it
restrict it in jurisdictions that go from having moral rights to not
having them, if such a thing ever happens.]
Don Armstrong
--
Yo
er yet, don't.
Don Armstrong
--
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its
freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it
values more, it will lose that, too.
-- W. Somerset Maugham
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
under a free license according to DFSG
>
> then such data is free according to DFSG.
If the work satisfies DFSG §2, then yes. If not, no.
Don Armstrong
--
Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept.
-- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_]
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
fy a work as the upstream maintainer themselves.
We may have been lax in requiring this, but maintainers really should
be expecting their upstreams to provide source for everything in their
package. I know I expect it as a user for the packages that I use, and
as a maintainer for the packages I ma
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 23:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > the the format that upstream actually uses for modification or
> > creation of the work should be supplied.
>
> I'm perfectly happy providing the preferred form of modifica
I myself have spent
a considerable amount of time dealing with upstreams to fix the
problems that I've identified in them, as have multiple other
contributors to -legal. Sometimes those efforts aren't apparent,
because they're taken one on one, but they go on nevertheless.
Don Arm
tware GPL incompatible. so it cannot link
with anything covered by the GPL. There's no sane reason for requiring
such a clause either. Almost everyone who did use such a clause
previously has removed them by now.
Furthermore, there's been some noise about such a clause being
non-free
s the patent rights if you claim that the
work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringment... which
effectively uses the patents covered within the work to protect the
freeness of the work itself.
Don Armstrong
1: ASLv2 §3 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
--
If I had a letter,
justification of the reasoning behind our difference in opinion, and
how that springs from the DFSG.
The few thousand messages on the GFDL are a reasonable example of the
process of justification that we have gone through.
Don Armstrong
--
Identical parts aren't.
-- Beach's Law
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
shouldn't prevent you from making the
modification in the netatalk packages incorporated in Debian, ideally
in a method that allows the code to link with either gnutls or
OpenSSL. [Just because upstream won't (or can't) cooperate, doesn't
mean that Debian packages should languish...]
le and covered by the
copyright of the program.
Consider a script that calls imagemagick to create an copyrightable
image steming entirely from information contained in the script. Or a
LaTeX "program" for that matter.
Don Armstrong
--
"There are two major products that come out
ent based solely on
preserving upstream rights at the expense of user rights is dead
before it hits the door.
Don Armstrong
--
why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common?
It... Doesn't?
good point
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
> >> include output produced when running the program.
> >
and they will
be more than glad to protect your rights (and other users rights!)
In some cases, they'll help you protect your rights even if you
haven't assigned copyright to them.
Don Armstrong
--
There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good
sleep better, but
ains such a clause.]
Don Armstrong
--
Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going
If in their place we find a thing more precious growing
A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting
A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing
-- Frederick Rükert _Wisdom of t
ense is compatible with just about
everything, is trivially DFSG free, and should allow us to use the
image easily.
Don Armstrong
--
"Because," Fee-5 explained patiently, "I was born in the fifth row. Any fool
would understand that, but against stupidity the very Gods themselves
co
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically
> text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to
> change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that
> it fits together with other buttons that ues the same
I'm sorry for being obtuse. ;-)]
Don Armstrong
--
Three little words. (In decending order of importance.)
I
love
you
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
ributing code under the MPL license, which is a
> contract, in debian-stable main.
Hold on a second. You claim that the Mozilla Public License version
1.1 is a contract, not a license?
That's a totally new one to me.
Care to explain to us what exactly brought you to that conclusion?
talk to the FSF first before adding additional
restrictions on top of the GPL. People there have a great deal of
experience in dealing with issues like these and can refer you to
people who can give actual legal advice.
Don Armstrong
1: In the non-modification, non-distribution sense of the word.
--
Guns Don't Kill People.
*I* Kill People.
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
der
the GFDL, this part of the copyright file would ideally be removed.
If it does, then for the purposes of releasing sarge, this bug would
be capable of getting a 'sarge-ignore'... but you'll have to talk to
the RMs for that.
Don Armstrong
--
For a moment, nothing happened. Th
t, but please don't lay the blame upon everyone who participates
in debian-legal for doing so.
Don Armstrong
1: Obviously, post-sarge is an entirely different story.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the
or after if it becomes toast and if we butter it before
are we actually buttering toast or just buttering bread.]
I think we've been here before, done that, and have sold off all of
the t-shirts to help finance the non-existant black helicopters.
Don Armstrong
--
[A] theory is falsifiab
en you run into them, approach upstream gently, and try to
help them understand why they really want to include the actual files
they use to modify the work.
Feel free to enlist members of -legal if you need help in
communicating with upstream.
Don Armstrong
--
"...Yet terrible as UNIX addi
creator's) prefered form, as well as any
subsequent modifier's prefered form. In the ideal (and commonest)
case, these forms would be the same. But when they're not, I see no
other way to completely satisfy the GPL than to distribute both.[1]
Don Armstrong
1: Even if you d
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:10:30AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Model -> C source
> > PNG#1 -> machine code
> > PSD -> disassembly output
> > PNG#2 -> assembled dissassembly
>
> In the above case, if
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Paul Hampson wrote:
> As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
> the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
> doesn't apply since the application also comes with the OS.
> (In GPL's t
that will require real modification not
allowed by the community trademark license.
I personally would suggest the lightningbug nee iceweasel method.
Don Armstrong
1: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040228.014134.ef226d15.en.html
--
There is no mechanical problem so difficult that i
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distributed
> > with the other components, as we do not require that people
> > actually install openssl.
&g
dard or higher as are pretty much all of the "major
components" (kernel[1], compiler, etc.)]
Don Armstrong
1: Well, most kernels are optional too, but you'll be hard pressed to
have a system without one somewhere...
--
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then
ckage need to figure out what do do about
dealing with them, either through some sort of free trademark license
(unlikely that that's even possible) or by replacing the trademarks.
Don Armstrong
--
Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make
you miserable enough, ma
one where the work is not distributable at all
until the depenency on the RFC is removed, as the RFC itself cannot be
distributed under the terms of the GPL.
Don Armstrong
--
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its
freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort
use them.
I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
release and dealing with all of the problems that that would cause for
the users of
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >I know if I were maintaining it, I would be very worried that the
> >trademark license would be pulled or similar, and I would be in the
> >very wierd position of trying to pull the packages from a stable
&
the
foo package would help me at least understand this line of
reasoning.[1] [Yes, I really have read almost all of the messages in
this thread, and I'm still having a hard time figuring out this line
of reasoning.]
Don Armstrong
1: It would also be useful if the specific cases where Depend
works until we get cease and desist letters from the
people who own the trademark. If that happens, the maintainer(s) of
this package will have to act quickly to remove the works in question,
even if they are in stable... but I'll be really surprised if they
ever actually care.
Just for the re
t overdone, it's really in the best interest
of the upstream maintainer to follow the instructions of the GNU GPL
when upstream places code under the GPL.
Don Armstrong
--
There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good
sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the wakin
at
least 5 copyright holders that I've identified so far. (FSF, Stefan,
Peter, Spencer, and Josh.) [I'm ignoring the auto* stuff, but since
that's owned by the FSF as well, you're probably ok.]
Don Armstrong
--
If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
-- Lowery's Law
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
o other
QLOGIC products that are not the work. Kind of a case of legal
defensive coding.
Don Armstrong
--
Frankly, if ignoring inane opinions and noisy people and not flaming
them to crisp is bad behaviour, I have not yet achieved a state of
nirvana.
-- Manoj Srivastava in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:
d thus fall under the scope of the
> same patents.
Which packages exactly are being discussed here? [While many would
prefer not to discuss details of patents, I'd at least appreciate
being pointed to specific packages and ideally patent numbers
concerning them.]
Don Armstrong
--
Debian&#x
d through an RSS feed in an entirely separate aggregator.
Surely you can see that requiring the clickwrap license to be viewed
by the user is a serious restriction both on modification (3) and a
field of endeavor (7); especially as there's no "clickwrap license"
over RSS protocol
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 12:56 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > But no one has presented a cogent argument about how mandating that
> > > people actually agree to the terms of th
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:06:56PM +0300, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > Maybe it's time to create some sort of patent/ftp/XXX policy
> > > then.
> >
> > Feel free t
work created by the government. There are other classes of
uncopyrightable works as well, and ways to abandon the rights granted
by copyright.
Don Armstrong
--
This space for rent.
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
t "most people would regard
[it] as source."
> The classes of modification that can be performed upon a binary are
> highly limited.
You can do anything you want to a binary. There are just things that
are more difficult to do to binary files.
Don Armstrong
--
The sheer pondero
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of "source
> >> code".
> >
> > As
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > "Anything that allows a form of practical modification
> > > consistent with the functionality of the resulti
et, the
fact that it could be distinct doesn't mean that it always is, or that
we can easily draw such a distinction in cases like you mention (the
documentation=data=code example.)
And yes, your mail is getting out. [Even though my mail wasn't getting
in for a while. ;=)]
Don Armstrong
Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS.
>
> [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion.
>
> Part 2. Status of Respondent
>
> Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true.
>
> [ ] I am a Debian
tribute Sun RPC without repackaging it (#1).
I'd hope that Sun meant something else by this clause, or that it's
been cleaned up, but I'm not totally certain about it.
Don Armstrong
--
She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
-- hugh macleod http
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>>
>>> Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are
>>> not authoriz
;t be the first time that someone wrote a legal document that
could be read one way when they really meant it to mean something
different.
Don Armstrong
--
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
-- Robert Heinlein
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgpSbbNMQ33S9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
rictions in the current GFDL
> any more restrective than similar restrictions in GPL.
Your line of reasoning in these two sentences is well hidden.
Exactly what are you trying to claim in regards to the GFDL and its
relationship to the GPL?
Don Armstrong
--
If a nation values anything more than
he license
to mean MIT/X11+not alone, (or better, just MIT/X11) that would
indicate that Sun was merely sloppy on the wording of the license.
Furthermore, as a slight nitpick, the 'part of a product or program
developed by the user' only applies to distribution or licensing, not
of a GNU derived GPLed program?
While the intention of spreading the word about the free software
movement is laudable, the people most heavily affected by these
methods are often free software's staunchest, although often not the
most outspoken, supporters.
Don Armstrong
1: I refer you
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> This phrase read conservatively
>
> ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports
> of clarifications ("BSD, but can't use
t code licensed under the
4-clause BSD license has. [I'm sure you're familiar with
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html but I'll provide it just in
case others aren't.]
Don Armstrong
--
Sentenced to two years hard labor (for sodomy), Oscar Wilde stood
handcuffed in driving
ely to consider changing their
logo.
Alternatively, we can completely ignore it and decide that their
little site is so pathetic that it isn't worth wasting our time on.
That's not really my call to make.
Don Armstrong
--
N: Why should I believe that?"
B: Because it's a fa
things are very hard to estimate. What is clear is that one
> does not use a viewer program to read a manual published on paper.
Ignoring of course, the viewer program known as the human brain, which
is arguably more complex than any other type of viewer program out
there.
Don Armstrong
ent
against this website, copyright will be our only recourse against any
other site or usage.
Don Armstrong
--
It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong
-- Chris Torek
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgp3i8c0KLBd5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
does not grant enough freedoms, or
loosen enough restrictions, for it to be Free under the DFSG.
That's why many -legal denziens have serious issues with the GFDL.
Don Armstrong
--
[Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause".]
I think they misspelled thi
to be copyrighted in the first place.
We return you now to your regularly scheduled thread.
Don Armstrong
1: At least in the US system. I can't speak for the legal systems of
any other country with any degree of acuracy.
--
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by t
been applying the DFSG to varying degrees to all parts of
Debian for some time now.
Don Armstrong
--
Guns Don't Kill People.
*I* Kill People.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgpDHTyXZiYTb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
a set of rules governing a
computer.
However, I seem to rapidly be leaving the realm of discourse
appropriate for this discussion and entering the realm of philosophy.
Don Armstrong
--
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN
Don't be teased or humiliated. See their look of surprise whe
stianity.
Yerp. *flexes knuckles*. Leave it to me to subvert Scripture. First
I'm subverting myself, now I'm subverting inanimate objects. Now if I
could just subvert that girl over there...
Don Armstrong
--
Three little words. (In decending order of importance.)
I
love
you
--
large components of Debian that are
under a 4-clause BSD license [OpenSSL]. I for one, will be glad when
gnutls completely supplants the use of openssl.
Don Armstrong
[Oddly apropos random signature]
--
Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take
MONTHS to make
to argue that
he/she had not consented to the license, then a countersuit under
copyright law is a logical conclusion.
If you are seriously concerned about the warranty clause, etc. please
don't hesitate to talk to an attorney or solicitor.
Don Armstrong
--
If you wish to strive for peace
n't mean that you still wouldn't have to retain an
attorney, but assuming you've got a reasonably competent one, they
should be able to make the case go away relatively rapidly, often
without bankrupting you.
Don Armstrong
1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous judgem
t to a
relieving yourself of the protection availed to you by copyright law,
or equivalent to a widely permisive irrevocable license.[1]
Don Armstrong
1:http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html
--
"There's no problem so large it can't be solved by k
main but are
not. I'm merely discussing the law as it applies to public domain and
works that are dedicated to the public domain.
Don Armstrong
1: For a rather popular one, see the Magna Carta
--
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but
won't cross the stree
garding them.
I do agree that the facts concerning works purportedly in the public
domain are of substantial interest for those who would make use of
them, and all who would use any such work should definetly be aware of
the ramifications of your research.
Don Armstrong
1: Well, it's not really mine.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> You maintain that it's because dedicating a work to the public domain
>> is meaningless.
>
> This I did not say.
It's either meaningless or meaningfull. I can't quite reco
1 - 100 of 689 matches
Mail list logo
