falling outside of the scope of copyright
protection. At least this is my understanding of the Berne Convention (1971),
the TRIPS Agreement and the national laws of the jurisdiction I am licensed to
practice law in.
Everyone is welcome to disagree, though. This is just my two cents.
Guilherme de
I am truly sorry I do not have the time to address the other points at this
time, and I will try to do so as soon as I can (which is hopefully not earlier
than two weeks from now).
Either way, there is one point that is reasonably easy to comment on. I will
do so now, if you will excuse me from
and with the remainder of the DFSG.
That, however, is merely a personal opinion, of which I am actually not quite
convinced. I look forward to hearing other people's comments on the issue.
--
Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore
gpast...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
application of this same waiver to the rest of the archive, but
I have a strong personal feeling about considering wesnoth non-free for this
sole reason.
--
Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore
gpast...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
of these facts, as I have been working solely with the information provided on
this mailing list, and I obviously do not disagree that, if the authors
explicity refused to release source, their work is blatantly non-free.
Cheers,
Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore
gpast...@debian.org
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:13:25PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our
6 matches
Mail list logo
