Re: [jdev] Jabberd 1.4.x license concerns/questions

2005-04-01 Thread Andrew Suffield
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.

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-04-01 Thread Matthew Garrett
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

Re: Linux and GPLv2

2005-04-01 Thread Raul Miller
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

Re: Linux and GPLv2

2005-04-01 Thread Måns Rullgård
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.

Re: Linux and GPLv2

2005-04-01 Thread Don Armstrong
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

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-04-01 Thread Andrew Suffield
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