G E TY O U R U N I V E R S I T Y D I P L O M A
Do you want a prosperous future, increased earning power more money and the
respect of all?
Call this number: 1 775 490 9881 (24 hours)
There are no required tests, classes, books, or interviews!
Get a Bachelors, Masters, MBA,
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040602 16:42]:
If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
GPL's terms. Downloading implies that you are instructing some
computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
computers, legally speaking, do not
Hi,
I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
respecting Debian policies.
The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
license is not usable to be uploaded under Debian.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthieu Delahaye) wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
respecting Debian policies.
The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I make photocopies of a book and put them on a shelf with a Free!
sign, and you then take a copy, I'm the one who made the copy available,
and the one needing permission from the copyright holder.
The thing that needs permission is not making the
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:15:50AM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk
about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing.
Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to
change the wording of the last sentence into one
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences
would work for any
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted.
Please link to this site seems non-free to
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted.
Please link to this
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:53:29AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered
On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
everyone lives in the US.
You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
everyone lives in the US.
You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
I'm not
On Jun 3, 2004, at 20:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter
where you consider the copy to be made, *I* am the one who is
causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that
particular time and place.
So then the
On Jun 4, 2004, at 13:53, Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me
to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability
On Jun 4, 2004, at 15:55, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
everyone lives in the US.
You're right, this is isn't the
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright
assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO,
sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I'm not saying the originating region matters;
It does somewhat when trying to figure out what a clause is intended to
mean. If we saw something like that in a US-based licensor's license,
we can be pretty sure it isn't
On 2004-06-04 22:36:57 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case, we're probably best off asking for a clarification from
the
author. (I don't even use Kerberos, so I'm not up to doing that.)
This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing
to do this
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:59:14PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing
to do this work?
This has nothing to do with making me happy. I only raised the issue;
it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem. Sorry, but I'm
not
20 matches
Mail list logo
