Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Walter Landry wrote:
These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications.
I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial
specifications.
What's the difference between full specification for A, which is a
Hi,
Summary:
If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the
public domain, do I have to contact the author and let him clarify this,
or can I leave things as they are?
I recall to have been told that, in order to make a piece of software
free, it is not sufficient to
Maybe this thread helps:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00018.html
On 30/03/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Summary:
If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the
public domain, do I have to contact the author and let him clarify
Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe this thread helps:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00018.html
Sorry, not really (or I've missed the relevant mails). I read a lot
about whether public domain licenses work as they are intended, and
something about how to properly
El jueves, 30 de marzo de 2006 a las 16:33:59 +0300, Damyan Ivanov escribía:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
organization (???You???) obtaining a copy of this software and associated
documentation files covered by this license (the ???Software???) to use
the
On 3/30/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/27/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those ludicrous conclusions do not follow logically from the claim,
for such reasons as simple plane carriage not being a technical
measure under the relevant
On 2006/03/30, at 21:04, Frank Küster wrote:
On the other hand, I have learned meanwhile that in some legislations
the term Public Domain does indeed have a defined meaning. From
this I
would conclude that declaring something Public Domain should be
sufficient, and that effectively no
JC Helary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Public domain is clearly defined in copyright law, and that should be
so in any country that has any kind of copyright law.
I fear there are a couple of countries that didn't obey your should.
Copyright only
extends to a certain period of time after which
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the
word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never
Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be
distributed, but that it is never Transparent.
I
This file is in the public domain is sufficient in Belgian
legislation, and in any droit d'auteur legislation I know of.
sincerely, Batist
On 30/03/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Summary:
If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the
public domain,
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
JC Helary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Public domain is clearly defined in copyright law, and that should be
so in any country that has any kind of copyright law.
I fear there are a couple of countries that didn't obey your
should.
And all that
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:03:53 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote:
Hi, Jacobo,
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
[...]
It allows to modify the library if it is needed to make it work
with other
piece of software (for that purpose == to use the Software as
part of another work), but that wording does not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And all that doesn't answer my question: Whether it's debian-legal's
consensus that This file is in the public domain grants us enough
rights to distribute it in main, or non-free, or not at all.
It's good enough, if it's placed there by the author/former copyright
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Is it really DFSG-free to have a license which prohibits placing a copy
you make of the document on an encrypted filesystem? Applying chmod o-r
to it (on a multiuser system)? Putting a copy of it in a
=== The problematic? clause ===
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
organization (”You”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated
documentation files covered by this license (the “Software”) to use
the Software as part of another work; to modify
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you've got the time to communicate with the author to request that,
it'd be good. Otherwise, I don't believe the ftpmasters are requiring
this from public domain works yet.
Thank you, and to Nathanael. I'll interpret that as note that down,
but care
16 matches
Mail list logo
