I wonder if all documents licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License[1] are inherently non-free with regards to the Debian Free
Software Guidelines[2].
I thought that if no invariant sections were used the document would
still be considered free. However, if invariant sections were used
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if all documents licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License[1] are inherently non-free with regards to the Debian Free
Software Guidelines[2].
I thought that if no invariant sections were used the document would
still be considered
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every document non-free or only those that include invariant
sections. The result is that... er... I am confused as well...
Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software
vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing
on its claim to an algorithm used in the popular JPEG picture file
format.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,63200,00.html?
tw=wn_bizhead_1
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software
vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing
on its claim to an algorithm used in the popular JPEG picture file
format.
Scripsit Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While I am not a lawyer, I am a law student... and if I remember
anything from my civil procedure course I don't think this
particular choice of venue clause would stick in an international
setting.
I'm with you there. But I think we usually take a
Per Olofsson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every document non-free or only those that include invariant
sections. The result is that... er... I am
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:55AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software
vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing
on its claim to an algorithm used in the popular JPEG picture file
format.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:14:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:55AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software
vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing
on its claim to
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:05:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
(However, in other cases we have ruled that some clause is not
non-free only because it is not enforceable, so perhaps our general
position is not very clear).
I'm not generally comfortable with that approach. For one thing, the
Are we sure this is what those weasle words mean? Not that I am fully
up on lawyer-speak, but I read the applicable laws as laws referring
to software, cryptography, etc. That is, I read it as, you must follow
the relevant US export laws but you do not have to follow all of US
export
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BUT, we are only obligated to the extent the case deals with our own
actions. I do not see a problem with this. That seems good and proper
to stand up for our own actions. The clause does *NOT* make us liable
for all legal attacks on Apple
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
clauses?
I can't place it exactly either, but I think it was some variant of
the BSDish you must/must not utter
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's
likely that the issue will become moot.
One patent in their portfolio expires between 2007 and 2014.
I'm sorry, but you can't just wait until the issue goes away.
--
Current mail
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is JPEG any different than GIF was
I don't remember that anyone was actually sued for using the LZW
compression algorithm (certainly not a company rather close to
Debian). Maybe the case was so clear that every paid royalties. In
this case, it
15 matches
Mail list logo
