On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:47:15AM -0700, Jamin W.Collins wrote:
Based on the recent concerns I began checking each Jabberd source file
for license indication in the hopes of distributing Jabberd under the
GPL or some other allowed license. Unfortunately, what I found was a
bit of a mess.
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free.
Your argument appears to be that we should consider those licenses
non-free because the words can be interpreted
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:17:51PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Thanks for mentioning command lines. Running a program from the
command line, usually involves passing it options. These options are
(obviously) copies of strings from the actual program. Can this
copying be a copyright
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:17:51PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Thanks for mentioning command lines. Running a program from the
command line, usually involves passing it options. These options are
(obviously) copies of strings from the actual program.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005, Måns Rullgård wrote:
You are obviously convinced that using a command line interface
can't be protected by copyright. Why, then, are you so persistent in
insisting that other interfaces somehow are awarded such protection?
Whether or not a specific interface is covered by
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free.
Your argument appears to be that we should
6 matches
Mail list logo