This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding [PMX:VIRUS] Re: will not be received.
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
I am totally fine if people put it in distributions as php4-xdebug.
AFAIK freebsd's ports already have this, and so will Mandrake in the
forseeable feature. It would be silly of me to prohibit this, and this
is what IMO the license never intended
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug manual or even A third-party manual for
Xdebug.
The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product.
It could very well be a derivative; a manual
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The trouble, I think, is that derived product has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries,
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug manual or even A third-party manual for
Xdebug.
The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product.
It
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One suggestion: you might be able to make the necessary modifications to
BSD yacc, which I think descends from the original UNIX yacc by way of
BSD UNIX and the whole ATT vs. BSD issue.
In this particular case, the modifications consist of changing the
Scripsit Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Debian packages frequently contain changes from the upstream
versions. (These patches are generally sent upstream, but the
Debian maintainer will often apply a patch without waiting for a
new upstream
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 10:45:51AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One suggestion: you might be able to make the necessary modifications to
BSD yacc, which I think descends from the original UNIX yacc by way of
BSD UNIX and the whole ATT vs. BSD
The trouble, I think, is that derived product has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them)
-- even an unpatched
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 10:45:51AM +, Henning Makholm wrote
In this particular case, the modifications consist of changing the
output language from C to something else. That sounds fairly major;
the entire parsing engine would have been
me Universal Commercial Code
s/Universal/Uniform/ (whoops)
This and other Model Acts, on which a lot of state laws in the US are
based, may be found at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ulc.htm .
Cheers,
- Michael
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug manual or even A third-party manual for
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug
An idea parallel to fair use is present in the Berne Convention,
under the name fair practice:
Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work
which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided
that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their
14 matches
Mail list logo
