In message 20091217024135.af5a9f7...@nail.towers.org.uk, MJ Ray
m...@phonecoop.coop writes
Andrew Dalke wrote:
On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think
it is, then I already have read it and came to the
Olá ,
Este programa não permite a visualização de mensagens formatadas (com cores,
imagens e links), portanto solicitamos que você copie o texto abaixo, e cole no
campo Endereço do seu navegador.
http://app.aknaemkt.com.br/emkt/tracer/?1,212575,0f31d39a,49c8
Para garantir que nossas mensagens
Andrew Dalke wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL
would have helped avoid this confusion. (Line wraps would help too.)
Since my first post, of which I think you are talking about, also
included the book title and author name, I
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:06:41 +0100 Andrew Dalke wrote:
[...]
The best counter example
is the GFDL-Creative Commons relicensing, when the original GFDL's
license grant is essentially identical to the GPLs.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your statement about the presumed
essential identity
Hi Anthony!
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:34:27 +, Anthony W. Youngman
deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote:
In section 10 (GPLv3):
10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original
Hi,
We are very proud to enter phase two in IdeasForChange.tv, our ambitious
project building a platform that will become an active tool to improve our
world. We do this by collecting ideas and connect them to the right problem. We
do this to give you better tools to connect and build
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:00:48 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message 20091216233823.af491478@firenze.linux.it, Francesco
Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes
The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is
used?
Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:00:48 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
If it's copyright, it's proprietary.
proprietary == property. If it's copyright, it has an owner,
therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary.
Your reasoning does not
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an
owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different monopoly
right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of a monopoly
the “owner” in a property
Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com writes:
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an
owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different
monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com writes:
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an
owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different
11 matches
Mail list logo
