Harald Geyer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:20:42PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
"Copyright 2005 by XYZ. The copyright holder hereby grants permission to
everyone, forever, to do anything with this work which would otherwise be
restricted by his exclusive
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 08:44:32PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
I don't see anything in our message that is not specific to my
original wording. Probably you can give me a pointer, why this
enhanced version is still poor.
Especially I don't see why a liberal and short license is a disfavor
to
Harald Geyer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:20:42PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
"Copyright 2005 by XYZ. The copyright holder hereby grants permission to
everyone, forever, to do anything with this work which would otherwise be
restricted by his exclusive
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 12:20:29AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
Would a software with the following statement and without any further
copyright or licensing notice be free?
Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved.
Any issues with that?
This means all rights
reserved because
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 12:25:50AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
Hi!
Would a software with the following statement and without any further
copyright or licensing notice be free?
Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved.
Any issues with that?
This is definitely not a license at all. This
Would a software with the following statement and without any further
copyright or licensing notice be free?
Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved.
Any issues with that?
This is definitely not a license at all.
Indeed it is not a license as there shouldn't exist anything that
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 12:25:50AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
Would a software with the following statement and without any further
copyright or licensing notice be free?
Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved.
Any issues with that?
No, because it's very vague: no rights reserved isn't
7 matches
Mail list logo