[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the rights attached to the program and other such phrases. To
the extent
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:47:32 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
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
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:41:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
This still concerns me...
I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not yet
convinced that this clause passes the DFSG.
What I do not understand basically boils down to:
How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid
This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the rights attached to the program and other
6 matches
Mail list logo
