On 10/31/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Person C creates a driver knowing with properly names defines and
comments explaining why he does what and where to easily readable
structures of the register mappings of the hardware. Person C then
goes and obfuscates the code into p
On 9/2/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
Scanning through the RC bug list and there seem to be a lot of bugs of
the form "foo is unsuitable for main because xyzzy license is non-free"
and "foo cannot be redistributed because of barbazquux".
I'm inclined to think there should be a regular tag for these b
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
...
> Your objection, in essence seems to be
> "We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
> is true."
> It seems to me that both of the
On 8/30/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... xor is patented.
For that matter, wikipedia currently lists five different patents
on perpetual motion devices.
The standards for getting a patent are low, and despite legal
practice to the contrary patents really should be treated as
On 8/30/06, Roberto Gordo Saez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I strongly disagree with your arguments. It looks that we have
opposite way of thinking, so I will not reply to them, it is going to
nowhere. Don't worry, as I said, I won't continue searching for this.
When conversations go nowhere, it'
On 8/17/06, Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's not reasonable to claim that we don't know the mpeg-4
is patented. It's well known.
In general, we do not know that filed patents are valid
patents.
In general, most patents which apply to programs that
run on general purpose computers
On 8/9/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
authors, but please note that some people have doubts about the legal
possibility to dedicate a work to the public domain under the Berne
Convention (that is to say, it's not even clear whether it's at all
possible to release something to the p
On 8/6/06, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree; I do not believe the GPL can cover dynamic linking. Dynamic
linking is mapping two separate binary objects into memory and
overlaying runtime-generated references based on a common interface of
string symbol names, *NOT* produ
A few days ago (22 Jul 2006), Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any opinion you get from debian-legal is not going to mean a thing to
either a court or a trademark office. For legal advice in general,
but especially for issues at the level of detail you are talking
about, you need to ask
On 6/12/06, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
"last post wins" school of debate. People
On 5/24/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/24/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian only distributes software.
If software is defined as executable code, then no. If software is
defined as executable code + related data used by it + documentati
On 5/19/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just
software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since
there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but...
I have not been able to figure out what Max
On 3/31/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even without including license texts, this leads to a huge file:
I'd start out with a copyrights directory instead of a flat copyright
file, if that's easier to organize and manage.
That said, I'd probably represent that directory in the packa
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the
> word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never
> Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be
> distributed, but that it is never Transparen
On 3/30/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 3/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Those ludicrous conclusions do not follow logically from the claim,
> > > for such reasons as simple plane carriage
On 3/28/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Worst case, you could read the open office source code to figure
> > out how [some of] these documents are stored.
>
> These examples give partial specific
uot;control" and "technical measures"
> > in the context of people making copies of a GFDL licensed document).
>
> Those ludicrous conclusions do not follow logically from the claim,
> for such reasons as simple plane carriage not being a technical
> measure under
On 3/27/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the
> > context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been
> > specifically enumerated by
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On 3/26/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If we're going to go into the exact quote game:
> >
> >You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> >reading or further copyin
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where
> > [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could
> > be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is
> > widely available,
>
> Why does it matter whet
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
&g
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
> > a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
>
> The copying to the DRM-controlled media seem
On 3/23/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > We require that licenses don't discriminate against fields
> > of endeavor, but we have never considered "the right to
> > distribute this free software in a non-free fa
On 3/22/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding
> > it in an executable, then making it available to users of a
> > multi-user system with read and write permissions d
On 3/21/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows
> > the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come
> > with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your
> > example).
>
> I don't quite understand what
On 3/21/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case: if we interpret the FDL with the legal definition,
> FDL'd works fail DFSG; if we interpret the FDL with your
> bizarre literal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG. A null diff.
How?
Please spell out your reasoning here.
(1) I don't thin
On 21 Mar 2006 00:59:55 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > > Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is
> > > governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does
> > > copy
On 3/19/06, Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of
> >> freedom to merely "distributable by Debian".
>
> On Sat,
On 3/19/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If it's someone else's GPL'd C code, then in your hypothetical example,
> > he's supposed provide source to his students should they as
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
>
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant.
>
> Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have
> written it oneself) and in I didn't fin
On 18 Mar 2006 22:46:24 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought it was rather obvious that I meant that in the sense of the
> original scenario, and not in the general case.
I'm not sure what's not obvious in what I said.
> You claim that the GFDL "can not be taken to apply wh
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and
> distribute'.
An argument could be made that a person making a
copy available for other people to read under restricted
circumstances is not distributing that copy.
Note, however, that on
On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright
> > law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does
> > not apply.
>
> Can you ela
On 3/17/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/14/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for
> > >
On 17 Mar 2006 14:29:18 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
> > >
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
> &g
On 3/17/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a bric
On 3/16/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is all very well for the DFSG, but I just noticed that the DRM
> restriction, read literally, prohibits placing copies on ftpmaster (since
> access to those copies for most people is blocked by technical measures).
I believe that the r
On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue.
>
> It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
> > unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
>
> I can see some difficulty in proving they
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
> >
> > File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
> > given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not.
>
>
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for working
> > with .c source code, in the general case.
>
> If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the
> preferred form for modification.
I don't know of
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
> of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to
> do so, but the intent of this clause remains very clear.
This requirement does not apply wh
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GFDL specifically says that it must "clearly and legibly identify you".
> Ambiguity and clarity are opposites, and pseudonyms do not identify you.
My dad's name is "Ron Miller". Are you claiming that his name does
not identify him?
There
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
> >
> > File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
> > given a
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I don't think any special attempt to prevent the technical measures
> themselves are necessary, since the GPL's source requirements already
> did that: an encrypted, locked, unmodifiable copy is not source.)
Ok, but the legal right to modify
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
> > believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
> > th
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
> > believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
> > the phrase &quo
On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:34:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems
> > > f
On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
Oh?
I find myself quite uncertain as to what it is that you're talking about.
I see two issues mentioned in other messages, the DRM issue (the
"technical measures"
On 3/13/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see why this is such a bad view of it. I've never thought the
> DFSG-busting anti-DRM was clear-cut: it's mostly suspicion because RMS
> refused to explain it. Justifiable suspicion, but suspicion even so.
I agree.
If someone threatens legal
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
> have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
> allowing licenses to effectively prohibit it. People say "trust me, we
> thought about thi
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That doesn't seem to contradict Branden's post. Feel free to discuss
> it with him, though; I wasn't around at the time.
Eh... I think I remember that it was thrown in for Knuth's software,
thoughI don't remember the specifics of those licens
On 2/16/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
> > it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that
> &
On 2/16/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some of the DFSG (expecially the patch close) show that the interpretation
> of what free is was broader at the beginning than the current
> interpretation of the DFSG (I am right to say that if this patch close
> didn't exist; you would have said that
On 2/14/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In every matter, it is virtually impossible to write a rule that can
> mechanically be interpreted to give a suitable result.
I disagree.
It's impossible to cover all aspects of all cases, but obtaining
suitable results is entirely possible.
> The p
On 2/13/06, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you people never give up, do you? as soon as one bogus claim against
> the GFDL is disproved, you recycle another one that was demolished
> months, weeks, or only days ago. repeat ad nauseum.
Another possibility is that you're begging the qu
On 1/30/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't this cause problems when the code is forked? If someone in
> France forks the code, then they have to travel to Scotland to defend
> themselves against any frivolous lawsuits. That allows the original
> licensors a bit more control ov
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > You can still claim that the court in question does not have
> > jurisdiction over the parties.
>
> You can claim that the moon is cheese too, if you want.[1] The point
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim
> that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the
> parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court to agree
> that California is an improper venue
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
> > &
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
> for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
> should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
> instigating the lawsuit.
So
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
> derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
> DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted
> in doing thi
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
> proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
Nor do bad intentions make a restriction non-free.
What makes a restriction non-free is that
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What argument?
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/ms
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What argument?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
> > Plonk means "I'm putting this person in my kill file ...
> Obviously I didn't killfile you.
Ok.
When your words don't mean what we understand, we won't
under
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hey plonked Miller, gratis copies also fall under the "first sale"
> > > (for which the trigger is nothing but ow
On 1/26/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not at all convinced. First, I wonder if this choice of venue is
> legal.
I think the question is not whether it's legal, but whether it's
relevant.
In some cases it is (for example, if someone takes action against
Adobe based on that license),
On 26 Jan 2006 11:07:02 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yorick Cool writes:
> > And for others it might change the rules in a non-costly way or not at
> > all.
>
> Thus it is a form of discrimination. It imposes costs (conditional,
> but still costs) on some people that it does n
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > And licensing software is not selling it.
>
> Yorick, Yorick. The courts disagree.
And then quotes as proof a huge chunk of text which includes
the explanation:
> A number o
On 1/26/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit?
I've heard mention of the concept.
Have you heard of 425.16?
(It's visible at http://www.casp.net/cal425.html)
Ok, I'm assuming that free software is in the public interest, but I
don't
On 25 Jan 2006 20:48:29 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > If Adobe is going to take legal action against someone else,
> > they'll have to deal with the jurisdiction(s) where this someone
> > else has a presence.
>
>
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any dispute arising out of or
> > related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
> > Clara County, California, USA.
>
> This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
> debian-legal contributors (including
On 12/30/05, Piotr Roszatycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I would like to know if it is possible to reditribute the Oracle Instant
> Client in Debian's non-free archive.
...
This is old, but I didn't see any responses to this. So I'll spell out what
I think is the obvious answer:
Thi
On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
> "With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MySQL has not
> demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
> irreparable harm. Affida
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
> the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
> covenant to forbear from the exercise of
On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
> to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.
I think you've misunderstood "the GPL is not a contract" as meaning
that there are no obligations associated with re-distributing GPL
On 12/23/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (In particular, the GPL itself does not explicitly claim to be
> irrevocable. The free software community generally believes it to be
> _implicitly_ irrevocable, but that won't necessarily impress a court
> faced with a plaintiff's argument:
On 12/16/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider the following situation:
> * Code (say MPEG encoder code) is considered to be covered by patents
> * Those patents are considered to be actively enforced
> * Code implementing an MPEG encoder is shipped in a source package
> * This
It seems to me that we have some responsibility for the licenses used
on these presentations.
It also seems to me that we should structure our approach to these
licenses similarly to the way we approach other license issues.
That is: we should encourage people to use a DFSG license, and we
should
On 11/4/05, Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Tangentially, could someone please clarify this: to pass on the work
> dual-licensed, do you need to comply with both licenses, or does the
> copyright statement attached to the work that you've legitimately
> distributed under one of the lice
We should probably have a link to this page somewhere where people can
find it easily:
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
Don is coming from the viewpoint of an inventor who wants to protect
and make money off his work, but he's probably more outspoken against
patents than we are. Also, sites lin
On 9/27/05, James Damour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem lies in the realm of Copyright and Trademark.
I'd be tempted to use "mecha" instead of "mech". Mecha
has a strongly established generic use tradition.
--
Raul
I think your points make a lot of sense, but you've made them citing
case law valid in a few specific jurisdictions.
A significant element of the concern that's been expressed has had to
do with international law.
In other words, while your points can diffuse some of the fear about
this issue, I'
On 9/15/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/15/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Microsoft SDK which has "generous terms" (what are they, BTW?)...
> >
> > When you're talking about what you need to build generi
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ** Raul Miller ::
> > On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
> > > > would b
On 9/15/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > > The license on visual studio doesn't really matter here. What
> > > matters is the license on the SDK (which has fairly generous terms
> > > for stuff you write
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
> > would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
> > question). But it does eliminate some scenarios.
>
> Assume that programX is a complex (>1 SLOC
On 9/12/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Assume every work eligible for copyright protection, for the
> > > sake of the argument, and for $DEITY's sake. AND we're talking
> > > ONLY about dynamic linking. AND, to boot, that those bits that
> > > end up in a compiled wor
On 9/10/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 9/9/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Please use a non-broken mail program.
> > Anyways, please say what you mean
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please use a non-broken mail program.
Quoting mutt's documentation "all mail clients suck".
A corollary is that all mail clients can be considered broken, in
some fashion.
A corollary to that (and something of a truism in the context of
all
at's not the same thing as these pieces being a valid argument
that your conclusion is correct.
> All the assumptions above create a simplified model, that we can
> refine later -- if we can come to any conclusion at all.
In other words, let's just start with the conclusion we want
On 09 Sep 2005 17:52:00 +0200, Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The argument, simplified, basically goes like this:
>
> 1. Program A is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute A.
> Library M is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute M.
> Program B is a derivative of
On 8/27/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 27 August 2005 07:10 pm, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > Some searching on the Copyright Office's website showed me this:
> >
> > http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
> >
> > "Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law
(resend with better To: line)
On 8/26/05, Ricardo Gladwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [2] http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f - Open
> Game License:Frequently Asked Questions. Do a page search of
> "compatibility".
Where they say:
"The Open Game License expands the contr
On 8/25/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable.
> > To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work,
> > their implementatio
On 8/24/05, Ricardo Gladwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Section 7 of the OGL also states that:
>
> "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any
> Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work
> containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed i
On 8/24/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable.
To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work,
their implementations are copyrightable.
--
Raul
On 8/22/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that the GPL says "if you obey this license, you can do these
> things that you otherwise can't do".
>
> The OGL says "if you obey this license, you can do these things that are
> otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to ba
1 - 100 of 1451 matches
Mail list logo
