On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 08:35, Henning Makholm wrote:
Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of
such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear
and possibly inconsistent ways. This in no way entails that *every*
set of almost-but-not-quite-GPL
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 02:41, Branden Robinson wrote:
Colin Watson helpfully provided this information in a recent mail:
4. The location of the original unmodified document be
identified.
I feel that this clause might be problematic in a way that clauses 1, 2,
and 3
Hi all,
The Maxima team is having difficulty reconciling the requirements of this
letter: http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/wfs/maxima-doe-auth.gif with
Maxima being GPL compatible. The letter states that the previous
paragraph should be included in the GPL and should accompany other
modifications,
Is there some reason you cannot include that paragraph in the text
that invokes the GPL in evry source file? Would that not be
sufficient?
Also, unless sections of 15 CFR have been renumbered, I believe the
citation to the EAR is wrong.
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This approach means that authors will be forced to accept
any kind of modifications, even those that directly go against
their artistic wishes. The US system thinks this is OK since
you got paid. The European system thinks this is not OK.
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People will think you made the silly modifications, and so
your reputation is harmed. I am not required by law to say
I modified the work if I bought the copyright from you.
But that's true whether I start with your work at all. I can make
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Possible, unless I'm so famous that people would recognize
the painting as being from me anyway. Or the painting has
been on display as being mine for some time. Or whatever.
What about Marcel Duchamp? Was his work morally reprehensible?
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
of their works.
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then along comes Linus, and the world goes oooh, shiny! and ignores or
trivialises GNU in the rush to become part of the cool new thing.
nice interpretation
RMS and co get very offended at this, feel that it's starting to look like,
even if the
(Sorry if this is a dupe. The news.gmane.org news-to-email gateway may
be having problems so I've replied in the traditional way from my email
client)
Hi Sam Hartman,
Is there some reason you cannot include that paragraph in the text that
invokes the GPL in every source file? Would that not
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:06:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
= Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
=
= This approach means that authors will be forced to accept
= any kind of modifications, even those that directly go against
= their artistic wishes. The US system
11 matches
Mail list logo
