posted mailed
Carlo Wood wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
As for 6c, I am convinced by the arguments in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
which render its
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive, but generally most DFSG-free licences
Måns Rullgård wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
DFSG
free.
I'm not sure about definitive,
posted mailed
Matthieu Delahaye wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on a correct debianisation of uC++ [1] with their
author. They already provide debian packages but they are not 100%
respecting Debian policies.
The author wrote a consistent manual for this software [2]. Currently the
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 01:38:26AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk
about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing.
Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to
change the wording of the last sentence
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability accepted.
Please link to
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I'll have to retract my assertation that one has to accept the GPL
before downloading a work covered by it. In most jurisdictions that I
know of, people by default have the right to create copies of most
copyrighted works for
Hello, I have a special_offer for you...
WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT?
The most powerful weightloss is now available
without prescription. All natural Adipren720
100% Money Back Guarantée!
- Lose up to 19% Total Body Weight.
- Up to 300% more Weight Loss while dieting.
- Loss of 20-35% abdominal Fat.
-
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known to be
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
Nobody here would do so, just so you
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
On 2004-06-05 09:49:38 +0100 Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't that what the fuss about the obnoxious advertising clause of
the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?
No, they require specific advertising as a condition of permission. A simple
disjunct polite request for any
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
Nobody here would do so, just so you know. :-)
Isn't
On 2004-06-05 06:49:19 +0100 Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think this license is actually legally nearly equivalent to giving
the
work to the public domain.
I believe that is the intention. For some reason, I can find very
little information on public domain grants in England
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
Nobody here
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Isn't that what the fuss about the obnoxious advertising clause of
the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about?
No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues
with those licenses.
I thought the
I am curious what the current status of the XMMS patent situation means
for Debian. I can find the following conversation that suggests
XMMS should be moved to non-free... and after examination I agree. Why
then is XMMS still in main?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/09/msg00123.html
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:23:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra
restrictions.
That's the not quite part. It's almost entirely irrelevant because
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:22:46PM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote:
I am curious what the current status of the XMMS patent situation means
for Debian. I can find the following conversation that suggests
XMMS should be moved to non-free... and after examination I agree. Why
then is XMMS still in
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:22:46PM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote:
I am curious what the current status of the XMMS patent situation means
for Debian. I can find the following conversation that suggests
XMMS should be moved to non-free... and after
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:42:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:23:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra
restrictions.
Lewis Jardine wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Related, is the following licence DFSG-free:
I grant permission to you to do any act with my work. Please ask me to
link to mirrors. Please link to this site and credit the contributors.
No warranty offered and no liability
Action Taken:
The attachment was quarantined from the message and replaced with
a text file informing the recipient of the action taken. The infected
attachment
has been placed in the designated quarantine folder.
Please exercise extreme caution when handling the quarantined attachment
To:
[EMAIL
24 matches
Mail list logo
