This seems like a big can of worms. I think i'll just fix the
bogus direct dependency on libdvdcss for Drip and bring Drip
into Debian for now..
thanks all for your help.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:01:21PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 01:49:48AM +, Robert Millan
Robert Millan said:
This is what the DMCA reads:
(2) No person shall [...] import, [...] any technology, product, service,
device, component or part thereof,
[ like Drip+libdvdread+libdvdcss ]
Anyway I find this discussion much useless, since the DMCA can't be
applied to non-us.
non-us
[ this thread comes from libdvdcss ITP #154281 ]
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 01:21:53PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 02:01:46PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:31:08AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
As for
I'll upload Drip to main when its independant of libdvdcss (through
libdvdread), and other technical issues are solved.
As for libdvdcss, see the other thread.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 07:02:16AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
Robert Millan said:
This is what the DMCA reads:
(2) No person shall
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is an arbitrary distinction that has no clear basis in the law.
You are also circumventing CSS by playing the DVD in question (viewing
is also a form of access). Remember that CSS is a standard developed
by a consortium of DVD *player
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:09:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is an arbitrary distinction that has no clear basis in the law.
You are also circumventing CSS by playing the DVD in question (viewing
is also a form of access). Remember
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is an arbitrary distinction that has no clear basis in the
law. You are also circumventing CSS by playing the DVD in question
(viewing is also a form of access). Remember that CSS is a
standard
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 01:05:02PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I'm not absolutely clear what distinction Steve's referring to, but I
assumed it was the distinction between decoding+copying and
decoding+playing. My understanding is that it's the decoding (i.e.,
the circumvention) that's
Greetings,
I have a question about how I can grant a license to translate a written article
without granting a license to create any other derivative works.
I am writing an article that I intend to release under a license such as the
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license. The
Hi all,
I'd like to package hawhaw (a php/wml library), but the licencing page
strikes me as odd. Here's the relevant extract from
http://www.hawhaw.de/main.htm#license :
==
HAWHAW PHP class library (hawhaw.inc)
The HAWHAW PHP class library is free software; you can redistribute it
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
I have a question about how I can grant a license to translate a written
article without granting a license to create any other derivative works.
What advice are you seeking? This is clearly non-free, so offtopic for
Debian, but we have some
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 08:58:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
[Big snip, I'll keep the two statements for contrast]
If you modify this library, you have to make sure that the powered by
HAWHAW copyright link below the display area is kept unchanged.
You must give prominent notice with each
If you modify this library, you have to make sure that the powered by
HAWHAW copyright link below the display area is kept unchanged.
I queried the author about the including copywrite line, and got this
response:
IMHO this additional statement is covered by this sentence in the LGPL
we have some folks who've thought about licenses a bit and may
offer help anyway.
that's my hope. I have chosen other licenses in the past without investigating
them thoroughly, so this time I want to be careful.
Bleh. Non-free means to promote freedom is a seriously flawed concept.
Just
Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, are you suggesting that freedom would be better served if the GNU
manifesto provided for modification? Note the manifesto's license:
Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim
copies of this document, in any medium,
Michael D. Crawford wrote:
Suppose the Manifesto were a free document. That would allow
Microsoft's PR flacks to update the Manifesto to exhort the user to
protect corporate rights to intellectual property, and illustrate how
respecting End User License Agreements stimulates not only the
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:58:52PM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
So, are you suggesting that freedom would be better served if the GNU
manifesto provided for modification? Note the manifesto's license:
Careful. You're likely to get your thread hooked into a discussion
that's been going
17 matches
Mail list logo
