I was looking at the code of mixmaster, an anonymous remailer
client/server application. It allows protection against traffic
analysis and allows sending email anonymously or pseudonymously.
http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net
I'm wondering if the licence is DFSG-compliant ? Could any lawyer here
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 04:26:02PM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
I was looking at the code of mixmaster, an anonymous remailer
client/server application. It allows protection against traffic
analysis and allows sending email anonymously or pseudonymously.
http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net
Eric Van Buggenhaut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(iii) provide Anonymizer Inc. with a copy of the Source Code of
such modifications or work by electronic mail, and grant
Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and
distribute the modifications or work
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This Software/Hardware product contains the algorithm IDEA(TM) as
described and claimed in US Patent No. 5,214,703, EPO Patent
No. 0482154 and filed Japanese Patent Application No. 508119/1991
This patent expired a year ago so it shouldn't matter much.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 04:54:39PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This Software/Hardware product contains the algorithm IDEA(TM) as
described and claimed in US Patent No. 5,214,703, EPO Patent
No. 0482154 and filed Japanese Patent Application No.
Eric Van Buggenhaut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(iii) provide Anonymizer Inc. with a copy of the Source Code of
such modifications or work by electronic mail, and grant
Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and
distribute the modifications or work in
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
I was looking at the code of mixmaster, an anonymous remailer
client/server application. It allows protection against traffic
analysis and allows sending email anonymously or pseudonymously.
http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net
I'm wondering if
I think word lists are copyrightable. The selection is a matter of
choice, not simple fact. Note that Feist applies only to the US;
phone directories may be copyrightable in some countries.
Compatibility with the GPL is not an issue here; the dictionary is
legally a separate work from any
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:00:58AM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
OK, so the patch files can be distributed, but where is the mechanism which
causes TeX to use them? Well, the DFSG doesn't say there has to be one!
Patch files must be allowed to be distributed, but there is no condition
that
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:27:39PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sat, 2002-08-10 at 18:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is there, in fact, any other software that would need to be pulled
from main if DSFG 4 were eliminated and DFSG 3 rewritten as follows:
Just stumbled across one: The Q
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 07:20:14AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
In fact, it is a rather nice license, much better than the GFDL. It
is basically a copyleft for documents. It doesn't have the
endorsements or exemptions for small scale copying that many seem to
want. The only thing that gives
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 07:20:14AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
In fact, it is a rather nice license, much better than the GFDL. It
is basically a copyleft for documents. It doesn't have the
endorsements or exemptions for small scale copying that
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 02:23:02PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Why did you CC me on this reply?
Python 2.1 has a choice of law clause (Virginia, a UCITA state). It
is also the default python for Debian. Choice of law has never been
interpreted to be unfree.
As U.S. law becomes increasingly
13 matches
Mail list logo
