Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
They are also not enforceable in the US.
Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
up with one.
This is what I know from Eben Moglen; I would ask him if
They are also not enforceable in the US.
Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
up with one.
This is what I know from Eben Moglen; I would ask him if he can give
you more exact citations. Also maybe look at the briefs that ATT
filed in the BSD v.
Greg Pomerantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They are also not enforceable in the US.
Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
up with one.
This is what I know from Eben Moglen; I would ask him if he can give
you more exact citations. Also maybe
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a requirement to
make a statement in supporting documentation? We consider both of
those free.
Advertising clauses only need to be there if you are advertising.
They are also not enforceable in the US.
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
They are also not enforceable in the US.
Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come
up with one.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:16:29PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Besides, I don't think [...] the ftp masters want to become the
Truth Police.
Who says they aren't already?
;-)
--
G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of
Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:36:34AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 17:29, MJ Ray wrote:
Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
work more than copyright law?
No, it restricts my ability to modify _other_ works, which, IMO, is far
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 17:29, MJ Ray wrote:
Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
work more than copyright law?
No, it restricts my ability to modify _other_ works, which, IMO, is far
worse. Personally, I don't think the DFSG allows it, except by
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 21:28, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction
that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could
we allow them if they are truthful?
Besides, I
Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Phillips sed:
I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded fair credit, but I would
object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular
form.
Well I can agree to be flexible. Can you suggest either another license, or
On Sat, 3 May 2003, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction
that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we
allow them if they are truthful?
Eek. Truthful is hard to define usefully here, and for some
On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 21:28, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that
invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them
if
they are truthful?
The cause is the non-freeness; one symptom of the
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 01:22, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
It's not just that I want to ensure I be personally be given proper credit
for
writing the articles, but that I ensure that future readers are always told
that
they can look to http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/ for the originals or
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 10:37:54PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
One possible response is that the GFDL does not allow these texts to
be modified while the BSD advertizing clause does. If someone has too
long of a credit, I can shorten that credit and still follow the BSD
license provided I
Nick Phillips sed:
I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded fair credit, but I would
object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular
form.
Well I can agree to be flexible. Can you suggest either another license, or
another way to apply the GFDL so that I can achieve
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:20:04AM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them
specifies a brief back cover text:
This contains material from the Linux Quality Database at
http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk;.
Is that a problem?
It
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:20:04AM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them
specifies a brief back cover text:
This contains material from the Linux Quality Database at
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mention you in advertizing material for my software is strictly worse
than requiring mention in a cover text. ANd yet we consider the
advertizing clause free.
Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
work more than copyright
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Scripsit Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of
them specifies a brief back cover text:
Is that a problem?
It can be misleading or wrong, and you'll never be able to take it
out.
But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that
invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them if
they are truthful?
In my case my only desire is to guarantee
Glenn == Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 08:31:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman
Glenn wrote:
How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a
requirement to make a statement in supporting documentation?
We consider both of those free.
Scripsit Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them
specifies a brief back cover text:
Is that a problem?
My impression of the consensus that is shaping up is that we're likely
to consider *any* cover text as a problem. The one
22 matches
Mail list logo
