On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:57:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted,
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:57:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted,
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:57:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
> > The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
> > copyright to begin with.
> >
> > As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
> > can be
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:36:09AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
In a related thread somebody mentioned GPL wouldn't be good because
some people use LyX for commercial purposes. I'd imagine the only
thing being sold are the pdf or paper output (please let me know if
you think I'm wrong), and I'd
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:36:09AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
In a related thread somebody mentioned GPL wouldn't be good because
some people use LyX for commercial purposes. I'd imagine the only
thing being sold are the pdf or paper output (please let me know if
you think I'm wrong), and I'd
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:36:09AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> In a related thread somebody mentioned GPL wouldn't be good because
> some people use LyX for commercial purposes. I'd imagine the only
> thing being sold are the pdf or paper output (please let me know if
> you think I'm wrong), and
On Thursday 15 June 2006 06:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I have no doubt that in the current state of the law, the
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I didn't know that.
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their respective author, unless
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
On Thursday 15 June 2006 06:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I have no doubt that in the current state of the law, the
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I didn't know that.
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their respective author, unless
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
On Thursday 15 June 2006 06:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
> > Comments within
> >
> > On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as "Licensed
> >> under the GNU General
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I have no doubt that in the current state of the law, the
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
> The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
> copyright to begin with.
>
> As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
> can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I didn't know
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
> Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
> have a copyright statement something like:
>
> "Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
> XXX license in the name of their respective author,
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
"Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
"Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar. Layout files
are code, so the GPL fits them well.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar.
This is fine by me. In fact, I think a lot of the uploaded files contain
copyright and license information.
Others might
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar. Layout files
are code, so the GPL fits them well.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar.
This is fine by me. In fact, I think a lot of the uploaded files contain
copyright and license information.
Others might
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as "Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2", or similar. Layout files
are code, so the GPL fits them
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as "Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2", or similar.
This is fine by me. In fact, I think a lot of the uploaded files contain
copyright and license information.
Others
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Oh, and Christian--I would suggest you be sure to make the copyright
info static with editing disallowed. Legal boilerplate is *not* the
place for community-wide editing!
Hmm... ok, I just
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately,
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed under the
GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar. Layout files are code, so the
GPL fits them well. Speaking for myself, I'd be hesitant to
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Oh, and Christian--I would suggest you be sure to make the copyright
info static with editing disallowed. Legal boilerplate is *not* the
place for community-wide editing!
Hmm... ok, I just
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately,
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed under the
GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar. Layout files are code, so the
GPL fits them well. Speaking for myself, I'd be hesitant to
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
> > Oh, and Christian--I would suggest you be sure to make the copyright
> > info static with editing disallowed. Legal boilerplate is *not* the
> > place for community-wide editing!
>
> Hmm... ok,
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
> > I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
> > the average user is "sold" on the concept, enough to go through the
> > learning curve for the various tags.
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as "Licensed under the
GNU General Public License, Version 2", or similar. Layout files are code, so the
GPL fits them well. Speaking for myself, I'd be hesitant to
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately, IIRC wiki tags are
just enough different from HTML and other
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately, IIRC wiki tags are
just enough different from HTML and other
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is "sold" on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately, IIRC wiki tags are
just enough different from HTML and other
42 matches
Mail list logo
