Hi debian-legal!
[ While I occasionally read debian-legal, I might have missed previous
discussions on this matter. If you have references to such threads,
please give them. ]
AFAIK in large parts of the world, e.g. in Europe, software patents
are not recognised. Debian has previously used a
On 3 Oct 2006, at 05:13, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently preparing an updated xMule package and found a statement,
which sounds a bit problematic. But I'm not a lawyer, so I ask you. E.g.
xLibs/DynPrefs/DynamicPreferences.cpp states:
// This file is dually licensed under the terms
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] proposed:
We believe that the draft CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses appear to be Free
Licenses, so that most works licensed under them will probably satisfy the
DFSG. Please note that Debian evaluates the freeness of each work
independently. Issues beyond
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] If it is a
license from the copyright holders, than the only ones who can sue
Debian for distribution of sourceless GPL'ed works are, er, the people
who originally gave out those works in that form. I understand there is
some contention around
MJ Ray wrote:
While fairly simple, it is totally incorrect, as public distribution in
breach of copyright carries criminal liability in England, as I previously
posted. See the Copyright Designs and Patents Act as amended, under
the criminal liability heading.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:55:15AM +0200, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
Hi debian-legal!
[ While I occasionally read debian-legal, I might have missed previous
discussions on this matter. If you have references to such threads,
please give them. ]
I found the recent thread on the matter
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:10:37PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
While fairly simple, it is totally incorrect, as public distribution in
breach of copyright carries criminal liability in England, as I previously
posted. See the Copyright Designs and Patents Act as amended,
Hans Ekbrand wrote:
The current sitution means that debian restricts itself more than it
has to. Debian could give users in many, but not all countries, access
to popular technologies (in particular mp3, mpeg-2 and mpeg-4
encoders), but doesn't. Why not?
Fabian Greffrath and I are working on
[Cross posting cut out, because this isn't particularly germane to the
other lists.]
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
IANAL and everything, but all times we discussed the issue the
opinion that prevaled, was that the firmware do not constitute a
derivative work of the kernel,
This is
9 matches
Mail list logo
