Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:13:14PM -0500, selussos wrote:
Someone sent me a comment from you on our license. I am not
subscribed to this list as I have already said, and so I can only
paraphrase from the list and ask, was this comment, ontological,
On 2004-03-08 02:46:15 + selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not in the United States. Copyright law here has no fair use
term in
it, only a restricted fair dealing provision. We cannot rely on
the US
copyright law's fair use contradicting your licence terms in a way
that
makes it a
On 2004-03-08 05:59:31 + Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does say conditions and if you don't consider the warranty
disclaimer and the sentence following it to be conditions then there
would only be one condition. So I'd argue the advertising part of the
XFree86 1.0 license is also a
selussos wrote:
on the US copyright law's fair use contradicting your licence terms
in a way that makes it a free software licence. I ask that you
familiarise yourself with this basic problem of copyright and free
software. Software that is free only for US residents isn't free
software (or
[Please Cc me on replies since I'm not subscribed to d-legal]
Hi,
I'm adopting the spamprobe package which is under the QPL (Qt public
license). The package has a broken configure.in script that results
in linking against libdb3.so even when libdb4.2-dev is installed. The
previous maintainer
[CC:ed to debian-legal, for sanity checking]
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:47:54PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
On 2004-03-06 22:20 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
While the lack of a valid copyright statement within the package is an
RC bug, I don't think there's any legal basis for claiming the
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:46:15PM -0500, selussos wrote:
- Original Message -
From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
On 2004-03-08 00:57:38 + selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of you have stated, endlessly, that you are not lawyers, and
that is obviously the case since
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:00:49PM -0500, selussos wrote:
We are cross purposes Branden. because of the virality of attachments,
I do not open them.
You confuse me; you replied[1] to a previous message of mine[2] which
contained an attachment of identical type (a PGP/MIME digital
signature).
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 07:54:38PM -0500, selussos wrote:
Sue, There is a principle in hermeneutics that says: there are no
useless words. This means, basically: if you want to say the same
thing, use the same words. If you don't use the same words, you don't
want to say the same
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:05:43PM +0200, Birzan George Cristian wrote:
Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim
made by nmap developers [1]:
in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's
rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of
10 matches
Mail list logo
