Francesco Poli escribe:
As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
disagree with me, though.
Maybe a big part of the problem is that licenses which are ok for
documentation or software works are not ok
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release
the source, you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since
he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no
obligation to give you anything.
This is the same
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:41:12 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
Francesco Poli escribe:
As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
disagree with me, though.
Maybe a big part of the problem is
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
In order to release the audio/video recording in a DFSG-free manner,
they should release the source as well, as defined in the GNU GPL
v2.
Wonderful! That is a feature of the GPL,
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:19:17 -0400 Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
[...]
Also, it's very possible that stuff no longer exists. I know that when
I do an audio project (quite infrequently), once I'm satisfied with
the result, I toss away all the intermediate stuff (audacity project
files and the
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:06:48 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
[...]
If you as an author do not want to distribute the source (or more
importantly, require others who modify your source to do so) then you
should pick a license like MIT or expat.
Wait, wait!
If someone releases a work under the Expat
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
When the uncompressed form is really huge, maybe even the upstream
maintainer thinks it's inconvenient to work with. In that case, he/she
may prefer to modify the compressed form directly: hence, the source
code is really the compressed form!
That
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: it appears that some files in gettext appear to be
suffering from MPD with regards to whether they're public domain or
still copyrighted by the FSF. We're operating under the assumption
that they're either PD or licensed as if they were, but it would be
nice to clarify.
On Tue,
8 matches
Mail list logo
