Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
My claim was: "*Basically*, bits in .h files are not
copyrightable". Which I now solemnly amend to "The kind of bits you
normally (>99% of the ti
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 02:11 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 12:24:39PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > The US-centric critiques have been addressed[1].
>
> ...or not. That citation was inexplicably random. Did you simply pick
> the first thing which had somebody to do with CC
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 05:41:10AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > I'd question whether that'd apply to a *free* system, anyway. I havn't
> > looked at these cases (since I don't know which they are), but I recall
> > a case that sounds just like it: an author of a work created (under
> > contract
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> > >>My claim was: "*Basically*, bits in .h files are not
>> > >>copyrightable". Which I now solemnly amend to "The kind of
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> > >>My claim was: "*Basically*, bits in .h files are not
> > >>copyrightable". Which I now solemnly amend to "The kind of bits you
> > >>normally (>99% of the times) find
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> >>My claim was: "*Basically*, bits in .h files are not
>> >>copyrightable". Which I now solemnly amend to "The kind of bits you
>> >>normally (>99% of the times) find in .h files in c-langu
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> >>My claim was: "*Basically*, bits in .h files are not
> >>copyrightable". Which I now solemnly amend to "The kind of bits you
> >>normally (>99% of the times) find in .h files in c-language based
> >>projects, and often (>50% of the
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 23:03 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [CCed to Andrew McMillan; please see item 3 below. Feel free to ignore
> the rest of the message.]
>
> [Andrew: this is the part I CCed you about.]
> > 3. Would GFDL with a clause would suffice?
> > (Note: I am asking because I found this
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 12:24:39PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> The US-centric critiques have been addressed[1].
...or not. That citation was inexplicably random. Did you simply pick
the first thing which had somebody to do with CC and things which
aren't in the US? I can't imagine how else you co
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050324.html
I am continually entertained by the way that Adams manages to be right
all the time.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><-
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:28:57PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Maybe he was using the word in a facetious/stylistic manner, rather than a
> literal one, and didn't feel it needed justification.
That's fine--in which case he could simply have said so, I'd have said
"okay", and we'd have moved on a
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:34:42PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glenn Maynard
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:30:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >>Andrew seems to avoid Red Herring arguments more than I.
> >
> >I asked for the rati
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:43:53PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:30:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Andrew seems to avoid Red Herring arguments more than I.
>
> I asked for the rationale behind his calling fair use a "perversion",
> and he refused to supply one. It's
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glenn Maynard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:30:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Andrew seems to avoid Red Herring arguments more than I.
I asked for the rationale behind his calling fair use a "perversion",
and he refused to supply one. It's t
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [CC trademark clause]
> It is explicit in the source of the page and it's explicit (although
> not necessary universally unambiguous) in the graphical visualization
> that 99+% of people reading the page see. CC has explained clearly
> their position and
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is ALLCAPS "NOT A PART OF THE LICENSE",
> > ...in an HTML comment...
> Only because it's graphically separated, by color and inside a box,
> when the HTML is rendered. The HTML comment is trying to make explicit
> in the source what is already expl
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:09:58PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now, agreed, stuff that's not part of the license shouldn't matter.
> > > > But it's really, really difficult to tell that the overreaching
> > > >
David Moreno Garza wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently packaging revolution[1] (a ruby library for interacting
with evolution's data-server) and I'd like to ask here if its license,
since the author uses an employer-based one, would be entirely free
(DFSG compatible), because I don't want to misunderstand
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:03:19PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [CCed to Andrew McMillan; please see item 3 below. Feel free to ignore
> the rest of the message.]
>
> Eddy Petrisor wrote:
> > Now comes in the tricky part:
> > The copyright holder believes in free software, but he doesn't want hi
19 matches
Mail list logo
