On Sat, May 05, 2001, Sergio Brandano wrote:
By law, there must be a legal agreement between the author and the
publisher. If no such explicit agreement exists, then the author is
still the owner of the copy-rights, and can decide what to do with
that material, at any time.
You still
On Sat, May 05, 2001, Sergio Brandano wrote:
I am tired of all these messages!
Stop posting!
Well, if you are tired of 'em, why keep you asking for 'em? *wonders*
You have to understand that no person or institute
owns your copyright if you do not transfer the
ownership in writing via a
Hi!
Any news on the case of the swirl they have in their logo? I can't see
any trace about this at all, the last question on this topic still
stands unanswered (from what I can see).
It looks like noone seems to care about this rip off at all and I don't
know where Sunnanvind Fenderson
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-28 02:10]:
Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
project's decision on this matter. This will help their psychological
problem. ;-)
It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on that
topic if
* Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-28 20:03]:
I haven't been seeing my mail on debian-legal lately, maybe I have
some email troubles.. hopefully the CC will get through, though.
I received it at least.
(Gerfried, if my email to debian-legal doesn't get there, would you
kindly
Hi!
Someone raised an idea on IRC that I might see as valid:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite
against a OSL
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 11:49]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly
* Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 15:32]:
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
Thats one
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-03 09:50]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:46:52PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell
* Craig Small [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-16 09:21]:
I think the page needs some information about it, roughly saying here
the vendors are but they're not related do Debian and we dont endorse
them or something. I don't want it to be too down as the majority of
vendors are fine businesses.
Hi!
[please Cc: me on replies, I am not subscribed but read through the
archive]
I've found a quite strange thing in one of my moin installs, and I need
to get some more opinions on it before I write the RC bug against the
package.
It is a German license text, so people not able to
* Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-04-30 03:49]:
I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy Hankins.
I would say, we definitely need
* Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-05-04 07:53]:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:09:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
I would say, we definitely need to relicense our website[1], then
I agree.
Given that we haven't asked
Hi!
[Please Cc: me on replies, I'm not subscribed to this list -- OTOH I'll
watch the archive for answers anyway]
I wonder why the games Beneath a Steel Sky and Flight of the Amazon
Queen are in main. To me the license is quite clearly non-free, because
its for non-commercial use only:
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-18 22:39]:
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
There is one last point that I really want to raise, though: I guess we
won't have to discuss that our very own beloved swirl logo has a
non-free licence.
We have discussed this. -legal agreed that the license
Hi!
On #debian-www will raised concerns that there might be issues with
respect to our logo license for including the debian lettering. It
doesn't contain a warranty waiver, and given that we publish svg images
which could contain potential harmful scripting (from will's
interpretation,
Hi,
first of all, I'd like to point out that this topic is NOT a wesnoth
specific one. I have tried to bring up the point several times in the
past (even years ago), it was always sorta ignored, even though people
said that yeah, surely the flattened images/music scores aren't source
nor
18 matches
Mail list logo
