On 5/21/06, Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Max
p.s.
Software is not music. Software is not visual art.
Software is a code, a literary work (and Berna Convention consider software
as a literary work).
So software patents are unlogicall.
There are two prevaling views of software which
Arnaud Vandyck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray a Âcrit :
[...]
A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name.
Java is the name of an island and a natural language too.
I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way.
A function that is used to call a runtime,
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, IANAL, but as far as I can see, as long as Sun has a valid reason
to change their mind and is willing to compensate any losses caused by
them changing their mind, they can do whatever they like.
Well, but *that* I don't think is a worry.
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 03:15:32PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Hi all,
Commentary by Dalibor Topic: The license is, frankly, still pretty bad,
and contains various nasty clauses: from the overly broad
indemnification(i) part, which has nothing to do with Sun's JDK
software, to the subsettig
Is there any legal reason why sharpmusique is not in Debian, given that
multiple .deb packages already exist?
If you're going to ask about a license (which is what I assume you are
doing), please include the license in question (unless it is in
/usr/share/common-licenses). In this case,
2006/5/23, David Mattli wrote:
There are two prevaling views of software which I have seen. The view
that software is the opposite of hardware, anything which is in binary
format and the view that software is executable code. The former view
is the most inclusive and the one (in my
Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/usr/share/common-licenses). In this case, the license in question is
the GNU General Public License, version 2.
I see no legal reason why this is not in Debian. I do see a technical
reason: no one wants to make packages, apparently, since the RFP in
Max Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But the question is very easy: any lawyer knows there is a big
difference between
corpus mysthicum (the artwork/the code) and corpus mechanicum (the
carrier/the file).
The copyrightable work is only the artwork/the code!
So, in your language, we require the same
On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:13:47 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Thie simplest solution in this case would be if Sun simply attached
the FAQ as an addendum to the licence rather than stating it's not
legally binding.
Yeah. Not disagreeing
2006/5/23, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sorry if that's butchery of a foreign language, but this list is usually
in English.
Ah ah! This is in english too (there are many universal juridical latin terms!):
In copyright law this led to the distinction between the corpus
mysticum (the work) and
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is
three times the usual
11 matches
Mail list logo
