Francesco Poli wrote:
What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to be
by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the clauses
that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc?
I think that clarity in this respect would be very important, since
there's no way that
Francesco Poli wrote:
While analyzing the license draft, I noted something strange.
The anti-DRM clause quoted by Evan is, substantially, the one found in
clause 4(a):
| You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
| restrict the ability of a recipient of the
Bas Wijnen wrote:
I thought we didn't care
about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
patented.
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't
Bas Wijnen wrote:
It would be illegal for us
to distribute it to anyone else. We can of course claim that we don't know,
and assume that the programmer knew what he was doing. This is not unlikely
(actually, it's even true for me). This means we only have to stop
distributing when the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
That's an interesting assertion, which contradicts current behaviour.
IMO, we
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:43:51AM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
That's an
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that stating This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by
James O. Hacker is an accurate credit, as long as it's true.
Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala.
If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear
a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment.
This one time, at band camp, Weakish Jiang said:
Bas Wijnen wrote:
I thought we didn't care
about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
patented.
Unless the patent is licensed
9 matches
Mail list logo
