Max Brown wrote:
The problem is that there isn't a lawyer here: this is the problem!
You seem to be mistaking the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the
Social Contract as principally legal documents. They are not; they are
moral, technical, and societal documents.
This is a mailing list
2006/5/28, Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good luck,
Good luck, Evan, goood luck!
Max
On 5/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some people think that only machine opcodes are software, and
that data in other formats are not. The argument, here, is that if
it's not an opcode for the currently running machine, it's not a
machine instruction, and if it's not a machine
On 5/24/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I said that many latin *juridical* terms are universal: the problem is
that you don't know the language of the *right*
No, the problem is that you seem to be using a foreign language
to cloud matters which are really very
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 + documentation +
everything else,
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2006/5/23, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sorry if that's butchery of a foreign language, but this list is usually
in English.
Ah ah! This is in english too (there are many universal juridical latin ter=
ms!):
Latin is not English. Is it universal? I don't
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
2006/5/24, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2006/5/23, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sorry if that's butchery of a foreign language, but this list is usually
in English.
Ah ah! This is in english too (there are many universal juridical latin ter=
ms!):
Latin is not
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I said that many latin *juridical* terms are universal: the problem is
that you don't know the language of the *right*
No, the problem is that you seem to be using a foreign language
to cloud matters which are really very simple. [...]
You are closed in your little
On 5/21/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Max
p.s.
Software is not music. Software is not visual art.
Software is a code, a literary work (and Berna Convention consider software
as a literary work).
So software patents are unlogicall.
There are two prevaling views of software which
2006/5/23, David Mattli wrote:
There are two prevaling views of software which I have seen. The view
that software is the opposite of hardware, anything which is in binary
format and the view that software is executable code. The former view
is the most inclusive and the one (in my
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But the question is very easy: any lawyer knows there is a big
difference between
corpus mysthicum (the artwork/the code) and corpus mechanicum (the
carrier/the file).
The copyrightable work is only the artwork/the code!
So, in your language, we require the same
2006/5/23, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sorry if that's butchery of a foreign language, but this list is usually
in English.
Ah ah! This is in english too (there are many universal juridical latin terms!):
In copyright law this led to the distinction between the corpus
mysticum (the work) and
First and foremost, please stop top posting. We Are here to hold
discussions about licencing, and it's very difficult to do so when
your comments are wholy separated from the context in which they
belong. You also should stop using HTML; a gmail account or similar
should enable you to do this if
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that DRM-inhibiting licences are possible, but the
s/are/that follow the DFSG are/ #oops!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. I'm sorry but I don't use IE and I have not that checkbox at the bottom... 2. I repeat: it's unlogical to value through a software definition a thing that is not software. You can say: "I want value this music on the basis of this software definition". OK. Also I can say: "I want value this
On 5/21/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. I'm sorry but I don't use IE and I have not that checkbox at the
bottom...
Well dump Yahoo Mail. If you can't switch off HTML, it sucks. I am
getting irritated enough by HTML mail that soon I will start
blacklisting.
2. I repeat: it's
Ok, you don't know related rights. http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/about_collective_mngt.html#P31_2900 Related rights are the rights that belong to the performers, the producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations in relation to their performances, phonograms and broadcasts
Ok, you have not arguments (and you don't know related rights). End of discussion for me. MaxAndrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Stop posting HTML.2. You != Debian. Debian standards of freedom are defined by theDebian Free *Software* Guidelines and that is basically set in stone.On
The license does not treat software: you cannot value the license on the basis of Debian Free Software Guidelines. ;-) However, where can I read that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free?? A link, please.Max Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fine remark,
1. PLEASE stop sending HTML.
2. GR-2004-003 changes the Debian Social Contract - it says that all
'works', not just software, must be free:
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a ***work*** is free
in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
promise that the
On May 19, 2006, at 16:14, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Of course you know that the anti-DRM
clause makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, right?
Do they necessarily or just the ones so far proposed?
I wrote an essay about it earlier this week, and I think there can be
free anti-DRM
1. Ok: how? I use "Yahoo! Mail". 2. Yes, DSC is changed, but DFSG are the same! :-) DFSG speak only about software and you value every work on the basis of a software definition! It's unlogical. In this point of view, DSC v1 was logical and consistent; DSC v2 is unlogical and contradictory. I
Good work Henri! ;-) I think that an anti-DRM clause (concerning granted rights) can defend the freedom. See "Free Content Definition" (Mako Hill and other people are working on it): http://freedomdefined.org/Definition Max
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low
On 5/20/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Ok: how? I use Yahoo! Mail.
Found on http://expita.com/nomime.html:
If using IE (not available in Netscape and other browsers) when in
the Compose window, make sure Plain is selected rather than Color
and Graphics. These two choices are a
On Fri, 2006-19-05 at 02:24 -0700, Max Brown wrote:
This is very interesting:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
Yes it is. And thank you for proving the point I made earlier!
You may not have noticed, but that summary and general opinion on
debian-legal state that anti-DRM clauses
Very fine dissertation but... Evan, do you know that "Against DRM 2.0" does not treat software?? :-) ROFTL And why you don't speak about related rights? unnecessary license... :-) MaxEvan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- notably Sony
Fine remark, but...
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...
On 5/20/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very fine dissertation but...
28 matches
Mail list logo
