Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
In the United States, fonts can't be copyrighted. Only font
programs (e.g., the PostScript code used to produce the glyph) can
be. So there can be no copyright on bitmap fonts, and using a bitmap
font, a
On 2003-11-26, Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, maybe that is up to the courts to decide. It doesn't look like a
copyleft to me, but that's just my first impression. I'm used to this
definition from the FSF site:
Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software
Hi,
Am So, den 23.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 04:44:
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:51, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Compare to this: You give a text to a newspaper with this licence:
* you may read it
* you may print it
Then there is no way I can stop them from printing, after we both
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But even then, you're going to have two problems: consider, for example,
the BSD Preservation License
Can you point me to an URL with the license text? I didn't find it
with Google.
Shoot, I was
25-Nov-03 19:19 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00202.html
Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's clear that our basic disagreement is here. I see
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require to
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:10:51AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:43:04 +0900,
Kenshi Muto wrote:
I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
may have been different.
What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
You mean that section 3 should really be read as If you ... you must
... instead of You may ... provided that ... and must be complied
with irrespective of section 2?
If you are distributing an executable or object code, that
distribution is
Hi,
seems like we are getting closer here:
It is true, that the case I constructed has nothing to do with copyright
law. My bad.
You agree that if the GPL would part of some contract (in the wider
interpretation, e.g. when buying something) or came with something I
bought from them, it would be
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:21:36PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:10:51AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:43:04 +0900,
Kenshi Muto wrote:
I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
may have been different.
What
10 matches
Mail list logo
