living in both countries).
Bernhard R. Link
--
F8AC 04D5 0B9B 064B 3383 C3DA AFFC 96D1 151D FFDC
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150226231412.gb3...@client.brlink.eu
gt; assume the work is under copyright with no license grant.
It makes it very likely they have not understood it and thus leaving us
with no proper license. (Though there are situations where it might not
be that contradictionary, as it could also be the work's former
copyright).
fear
this test can be used for.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120924165915.ga18...@client.brlink.eu
;
> That is exactly my position: "You do not need the dissident test".
What you quote as being "exactly [your] position" is me trying to say
that we need the dissident test. (And I hope noone gets DD who has not
looked at it.)
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
an also just quote the
DFSG. The tests are just a method to make people not look to much at the
letter but at the spirit of the DFSG to distinguish some pure
theoretical issues from real world issues, i.e. to bring some saneness
into the discussion.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To U
).
The combination with "designed" and "intended" also makes your
interpretation hard to defend, because if copyright law was
already forbidding the usage, what does it matter whether it was
designed or intended for that case?
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
acknowledge" were conditions, it would not change much, as
one is not allowed to do the first anyway and as long as the second
is obviously true, there is no cost in acknowledging it).
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120915112550.ga28...@server.brlink.eu
ng which they do not and so on).
> I guess this means that if my map have that logo then my map is not free, i
> cant add it to Debian free packages.
As long as the logo itself is under a free license and your map does not
misuse any trademarks, I see no problem..
Bernhard R. Link
mere arguments why the situation might not be how we all think it should
be in an ideal world.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120805065925.ga14...@client.brlink.eu
ead this correctly, some things you are
allowed to embed, but only verbatimly and for specific purposes, but the
limits are quite absurd and I'm not sure it even gives permission to
distribute for all the stuff you find in some postscript files).
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBS
wed
| to use this software for [...].
then I would not see any problem.
Thus:
> Bernhard R. Link, 2012-06-04 11:05+0200 (gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal):
> > So it has no meaning to anyone else and for the US
> > government it is about rules set by thatself, so this
> > should no
it legal to copy it
> and to include it in the package, or should it be removed?
What do you mean with "removed" exactly? The statement itself
is of course not to be removed from the file. For the file itself
you need a license grant, just like for any other file you want to
copy and d
ce is only a problem once the question
what source is is answered in a way that that is the source (or would be
the source if it existed in case you allow conditional definitions).
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsub
at is not in GPLv2?
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120309163203.ga3...@client.brlink.eu
* Florian Weimer [111225 18:30]:
> Germany has the same problem, I think, because in order to protect
> authors from distributors (which are often quasi-monopolistic), there
> are limits to what license grants authors can make. As a result, a
> similar situation could theoretically arise. My fav
* Paul Wise [111223 06:51]:
> I read an extraordinary claim about the GPL on IRC and during the
> ensuing discussions I discovered a couple of countries with unusual
> copyright law.
>
> In Slovakia apparently license grants have to be "in writing", meaning
> most software licenses have no effect
* Hugo Roy [29 18:13]:
> Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 17:38 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> > Say I have a blog, that is created by some software. Assume that
> > software contains AGPL code. Am I allowed to run a server that only
> > serves my blog without paying f
is no. Thus I consider it non-free.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2029163854.ga17...@server.brlink.eu
on running the software. The GPL has no
restriction on running, it has only restrictions on distribution.
What good is it that I am allowed to share modifications to software
if I am not allowed to run it?
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.
LAs are more free than that).
Or it does not restrict how you run your computer then this is a severe
limitation on modification not having any positive effect to justify it.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "uns
* Hendrik Weimer [15 15:50]:
> US government works are only in the public domain when distributed
> within the US. In all other countries that have signed the Berne
> Convention you still need a license, which should also apply to many
> Debian mirrors.
It's a bit more complicated. As far as
on grant, only
one additional restriction, I not see what sense offering both makes.)
Having the "Copyright YEAR NAME " form is most likely simply some
form of folklore[1]. Debian prefers that folklore in debian/copyright,
so might others, thus having it in the files makes it easier for
ronically the most problematic
countries might be those that have historically high requirements on
creativity for work to be protected (as the general "needs creativity"
rule has to be lifted for software in order to have any commercial
software to be eligible)
Bernhard R. Link
oper English, but for non-native speakers like
me evidence is stuff good enough for court, which is far to strong
here.).
And having stuff marked as being from other sources is a very clear
indication there might be at least some copyright line missing and
very likely also a license.
Bernha
al legislation[1].
The same situation like if some author is dead long enough for one
legislation but not long enough for another, then the work can
be public domain in some parts of the world and not public domain
in other parts of the world.
Bernhard R. Link
[1] Berne has recipocity.
make any changes to it,
it definitely is not source in any meaning useful to interpret the DFSG.
And while postscript can be nice hand-written source, dvips
generated postscript code is usually the exact opposite and most of
the time even too opaque to even make trivial changes.
Bernhar
#x27;t list "public in the USA", thus it would be granted
to everybody.
I'd suggest to ask a lawyer about statements like that. From what I
understand it might be possible that one day the US goverment decides
it wants to sue someone copying things like that outside the US and
might win i
* Teemu Ikonen [101212 20:15]:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Aaron M. Ucko [101210 20:36]:
> >> > The conclusion I draw from the threads above is that the license above
> >> > is DFSG-free.
> >>
> >> I agree
> work falls into the public domain
Only in the US. They still own the copyright for the rest of the world.
(And then I think they can buy stuff not produced by themselves and that
is not even public domain in the US).
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs so few bugs, a
ogram is still abiguous
enough).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20100416093639.ga7...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
ey must
have smoked when writing this. (Though we usually accept the perl script
unless it is consciously obfuscated).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listma
the same source package building multiple
binaries, thus having more build-dependencies than needed for only
building the core packages...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe&
make sure you never loose those
and give out written offers to give those source packages to everyone
asking for those). That would suffice if everything in there would
GPLv2. I guess except perhaps some advertise-clauses of some old BSD
like licenses that should be the hardest part.
H
gh rights to relicense (thus make
a grant in a LICENSE file but sadly 'forgot' to update individual files,
which should be fixable easily)
or there is noone with this right, then any claim in the LICENSE file
to grant an additional license for this file would be known false thus
not useable.
Germany.
Is there any citation for that? I've not yet seen any evidence or hint
of an evidence why a German cannot give an maximal permissive license
by talking about "putting it into public domain".
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg
s.
If that is reasonable possible with the pdf, then it can be OK in my
eyes. But as I said, I think in most cases that is simply not the case.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
me documentation.
I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big
a loss for documentation. But I think in most cases only a .pdf is still to
hard to change to call it free.
Bernhard R. Link
--
h easier. Especially as code
tends to hitch-hike in other programs. When you then have some code
that every search engine shows you is copied from somewhere else, but
you do not know where it origins from or if it actually has a free
license, things get ugly...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhar
goverment works. Those are public domain in
the USA but one of the recent discussions showed they are not public
domain outside.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
* Ken Arromdee [090209 05:39]:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > 1) The safe way: See what it does, describe someone else not knowing the
> > code to write code doing this for you and use that code.
>
> Does that actually work? The description is a deriva
ter ask some lawyer to be sure if you want to go this
way).
> losing it would probably cause dataloss in use of the application.
What happens if javascript is disabled? Please make sure the application
also works then (or at the very minimum, fails gracefully).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bern
the US might actually be in the hands of some
organisational unit of the USA).
On the other hand, waiting till someone sues will not make the situation
much easier (though if it really is only one copyright holder for
everything, it could wait until it gets profiable...)
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard
s class here under
our rules, as far as the home state of the copyright holder would also
protect this class of works". And I think with class of works it means
classes like texts, paintings, radio broadcasts, software, ... and not
classes like "made as work for the government"
for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its
works abroad."
and explain?
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
f what is
copyrightable and makes no exception for things that would not have been
protectable abroad.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
on a single Bluray disc (or DVD/cdrom set),
so
everything in Debian accompanies everything else).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081201 13:37]:
> * Bernhard R. Link:
> > And you think that once there will be hundreds of such renamed projects
> > of the same program which only have some patches that are not very
> > usefull for most people because of having t
he servers and the connections it runs
on anyway to make some sense, then a license requiring the user of the
software to "donate" $100 per copy to some free software charity would
be acceptable for main?
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ple have to always outsource the modification of their software
so they are spared from having to offer access to the source?
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] Let's assume every software is AGPL and the router has some
webinterface where every user (and not just the one operating
; In conclusion we will continue to access AGPL works into main subject to
> the rest of the checks that we also normally perform.
Sadly,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was English, but if people are able to make grants they did
void by using the wrong words, then lawyers would start using the wrong
words like people cross their fingers behind their back).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging too
s I do understand it. (Or to do so
would just be impractical).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in."
fails to do. Such a sentence makes it perfectly clear what you want to
achieve. I should be legal in the US and I doubt a German court will
tell someone they used the wrong magic words but interpret the
intention.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs
t you can continue your service or business...
And I doubt anyone is of the opinion that "you will be able to download
it once this lawsuite is settled" is timeframe that is allowed...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
* Davi Leal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080915 20:55]:
> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > Is it so hard for your to understand, that not being able to run
> > modified services secretly is a restriction?
>
> Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only
it so hard for your to understand, that not being able to run
modified services secretly is a restriction?
That having to make sure something can be downloaded from somewhere
means costs? (And that enumerating services offering such a service
without payment for another mean without any guarantee does
recated much earlier than
that, but I'm not from the US, so even mentioning "Berne Convention"
sounds like an anachronism in my ears...)
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it. We did reject to give them our "dfsg-free" tag in the past,
and I see no reason to label non-free things free in the future.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] There is a German proverb "Das Gegenteil von gut ist gut gemeint",
which translates roughly to
&
ystem, the source code is likely also to be small.
But usually the memory on embedded systems is even smaller, so this is a
very noticeable restriction.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;
not say that the whole source code is available. Telling them an URL
of the original program and of a patch might perhaps be considered
enough, but having to stop your service when the upstream service no
longer runs or no longer contains the version is question[1], or only
to be prepared to react
rights it
gives you from those you would have without any copyright law a bit in a
way to make sure other people's rights are more effective (by forbidding
obscured source (e.g. binaries ;->)).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] I know there are some theories that running is cop
.
No, there is an very important difference. The GPL ensures that everyone
is allowed all the things they would be if there was no license at all.
And when people make modified variants, it stays this way.
What AGPL does, is trying to limit how a program is allowed to run. That
is an very important diff
uot;, which I don't think is completely unreasonable for
> webapps and similar.
Except that that running software is nothing that a sane copyright law
should interfere with and nothing anything wanting to be called free
license has a right to limit.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UN
o run it without
fullfilling some restrictions. I fail to see how anyone can consider that free.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
k then only used software
on other people systems without owning a copy of it? Where is there
anything new here except the attempt to limit people's right to run
their software for any purpose they see fit?
Thanks in advance,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ut I do not buy the theory that US law does not have them.
§203 offers authors the possibility to terminate transfers and licenses,
and in §106A allows and author (and explicitly not the copyright owner)
of an "visual art" to prevent "distortion, mutilation, ...".
They may be sma
w all the facts. Perhaps that's because lawyers make those rules).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080228 20:54]:
> On Thursday 28 February 2008 11:27:15 am Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080228 20:01]:
> > > On Thursday 28 February 2008 10:19:26 am Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > You ju
n of source code.
> 3. Allowing for modifications and derived works.
The desert island test and the dissident test are just simple examples
why "you may modify provided that you publish" is something very
different from "you may modify".
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
* John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071118 17:34]:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 01:45:24PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071117 23:55]:
> > > In addition, according to other posters in this thread the term
> > > "Urh
e differences, but most of them are just procedural. Like
you cannot transfer copyright, but grant an exclusive license and so on
and so forth...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nd all the other stuff that
had some meaning many decades ago) people use like magic stickers out
of fear they might be needed somewhere. As it looks like a contradiction
it is note nice and better be removed. But I'd guess that this part
is no real problem.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernh
* Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070603 05:49]:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 08:30:56PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > Count me in. I don't feel comfortable with choose-of-venue at all.
>
> This attitude is exactly why there's a disconnect between regular post
comfortable with choose-of-venue at all.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free software is to an
large part idealism. Idealism and big problems in the theory don't fit
well together.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Though noone wants the napkin with the design written on it, or
the editor contributing the formating by autoindenting to be distributed
as part of the source. Nor the documents and standards (or even the
reference book descriping your language and interfaces) read while
writing it.
Hochachtungsvoll,
either you restrict
people to run firewalls and filters before that to block that interface
(which is again run restrictions) or you have just a massive restriction
on freedom without any gain at all, which I refuse to call free.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] sane in the meaning of
one way, the judical system in the next might decide the
other way)
IANAL and so on,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on of the DFSG, which is totally different to
how almost everyone else reads it.
Thanks in advance for not replying to this post or any replies to it,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
omplete source
# code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
# associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
# control compilation and installation of the executable.
"scripts used to control compilation" is clearly what we currently
refer to
e the title from all caps to something fitting to
the rest of the titles in the table of contents).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
evil.
(Just as a hint: In some jurisdictions classical copyright law
might not restrict running at all, so restrict it more than with
no license at all, which could lead to click-wrap, restrictions
to not give it to anyone not accepting the license, ...)
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
lse. Do you want us to throw it into the recycle bin on your
behalf instead of sending to you?".
Though the lawyers and judges would surely find some problem with
that, too.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060117 02:30]:
> From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Where did the "unless that component itself accompanies the
> > executable" go? Is it somewhere else?
>
> It has been eliminated, intentionall
right
> to sublicense, at the time you distribute the covered work or in the
> future, that would be infringed or violated by the covered work or any
> reasonably contemplated use of the covered work.
This is really a bit harsh. Especially that automatism. Why not disallow
them to distri
ry to be also
added into a copyright license, but if it is wanted there, please add
some escape route in there, so that one can tell about endorsement if there
is any. Some often found clause it something like "without prior written
auhtorization from ..."
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. L
more in
the jurisdiction choosen by the clause, what will happen?
Will simply the normal rules apply, or will both have to
travel to the remote place, will that even be able to
open an case?
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
u, but only make me feeling guilty of feeding the
trolls when answering you.
> Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Oh, all hail Micheal, the great martyr trying to open our eyes.
Better this way?
Sorry for writing, but I can only ignore a certain amount of
such posts,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUB
scheme it to persuade to court
you did not do so and lied and produced specifications and
documentations and the like to disguise the facts. It is not even
your word against someone else's word, but your word against someone
else's wild guessings.
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ury because the people carrying the banner of
> reform behaved in a manner repugnant to those who understood that the
> existing system, while flawed, was better than anarchy.
Ah, so we are not only crack-smoking but also targeting anarchy?
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ployed by or otherwise related to Microsoft
or any other large company selling non-free software?
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ence are exclusive licenses. And as
these "morale rights" are considered part of human rights, they are
not transferable and not bounding contracts about their use can be made.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
roviding the
facts. And I do not know what you care about, but I will not call that
freedom.
Sorry,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ive any third party, for
a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source
distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above
on a medium customarily used for software interchange;"
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
ive any third party, for
a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source
distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above
on a medium customarily used for software interchange;"
Hocha
s-ja: groff_tmac.5.gz groff.7.gz roff.7.gz
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
oidentd: oidentd.conf.5.gz oidentd_masq.conf.5.gz oidentd.8.gz
Sergio Rua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
partimage: partimage.1.gz
partimage-server: partimaged.8.gz partimagedusers.5.gz
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
notice saying this License applies
|to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other
|conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] As this specific info page is not yet in a package, though I do not
doubt there will be s
machines
quite common, we only need to add some code to libc that the library and
the program are always executed on the other one of the processors.
MfG,
Bernhard R. Link
hat are forced by
evil companpanies/beeings/desires to use non-free stuff[1].)
MfG,
Bernhard R. Link
1: and before anyone starts discussing about freeness: Do you have the
source and all perimissions to do with it what we require for the word
"free" in this context?
ot to this specific
code. You still have rights to use any other GPLed code, even from the
same author.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.
1 - 100 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
