On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:49:48 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I don't know whether I'll have enough time to do it personally.
Let's do as follows: I see if I can modify the wiki page on Sunday;
you look at the wiki page on Monday and, if it's not
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, fine. Let's consider the case in which TPM is hard to apply:
Then isn't it an effective barrier to further modification and
redistribution (i.e. non-free)?
It's a practical problem, not necessarily something non-free.
[...]
I stand by my opinion
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] It's very frustrating to have to
repeat the same points over and over again, because some people don't
apparently read them before replying.
Amen.
I can appreciate of course, that Debian legal folk, having discussed
this already, and having
I spent far too long crafting a reply to this, then a pair of ISP/SMTP
errors sent it to /dev/null - this is a rushed rewrite. If you are in
a rush, points 17.1, 17.8, 17.13, 17.15 and 17.18 are most repeated
and you can get the gist from them.
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
MJ Ray
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
distribute *only* if we distribute source. So, GPLed sourceless == NO
PERMISSON.
I will list the
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
distribute *only* if we
Terry Hancock wrote:
I have been a Debian user for several years now, an occasional free
software developer, and a user of the Creative Commons By-SA license, so
I have been following the effort to make the CCPL3.0 comply with the
Debian Free Software Guidelines with some interest. I used to
And people can copypaste
that code out of your project and reuse it elsewhere under
the original (BSD) terms.
Doesn't section 2b say that projects reusing BSD code from a GPL'd
project have to be GPL'd?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
posted mailed
Ben Finney wrote:
Dr. ERDI Gergo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Please CC replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Done.
I have no idea where I could get questions like this answered, so I
thought Debian-Legal would be a good place.
You should definitely seek experienced legal
Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
header:
#!bin/bash
#
# Let this be known to
posted mailed
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient all rights
otherwise reserved to the copyright holder.
Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of
a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights.
Michael Poole wrote:
Nathanael Nerode writes:
Do you have any evidence to indicate that these byte streams contain
any copyrightable or otherwise protected content?
They look creative to me. I certainly couldn't write them independently,
on
my own. Under modern copyright law,
Øystein Gisnås wrote:
I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package
libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns:
* 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link
against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file
Ryan Finnie wrote:
Greetings,
I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company
itself
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention
that you're not a lawyer.
That should be abundantly
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to
Ryan Finnie wrote:
Walter,
Thank you for your comments (everybody else too). Sorry for not
following up sooner; please see question below.
On 9/27/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ryan Finnie [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked for help with:
(c) You
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 12:06 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Worse, the PDF description of the parallel distribution amendment appears
to describe an amendment which is less restrictive than necessary for
Debian's purposes (see comment 11). (Proper parallel distribution
MJ Ray wrote:
How can anyone discuss decisions made by a secret process for secret
reasons in any useful way? If that decision is to be changed, it helps
to know how and why it was made, but we simply have almost no data on it.
This is the part which is really frustrating about CC, actually.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Yes, I'm not a lawyer. Do not rely on anything I say
Matthew Wala wrote:
The new BSD
(meaning, without the forced-advertising clause)
and GPL licenses are considered compatible, but how are the
requirements of the BSD license satisfied when BSD licensed code is
included in GPL projects (eg, the Linux kernel)?
(1) Include the copyright
MJ Ray wrote:
and maybe some other bits too (CC3.0 is a long licence). The Scotland
one is far briefer, especially when viewed in context, and it has the
apparently crucial difference of including 'effect or intent'.
I'm actually curious as to why this is apparently crucial; I haven't seen a
The title of this thread made me think, Gee, I'd love to conquer
relicensing. I'm certainly not a relicensing master yet. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I'm new dealing with licenses and I've been trying to catch up, however
I need advice.
Edward M Barlow wrote conquer, a middle
Matthew Wala wrote:
And people can copypaste
that code out of your project and reuse it elsewhere under
the original (BSD) terms.
Doesn't section 2b say that projects reusing BSD code from a GPL'd
project have to be GPL'd?
No. This is a matter of identifying the individual works making up
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
OK, another stab at this beast!
I've been in contact with Mark Delany, the Yahoo! engineer that wrote the
draft and administrates the DomainKeys SourceForge project. HINAL though,
AFAIK.
On Saturday 17 June 2006 19:41, Joe Smith took the opportunity to say:
snip
Joe Smith wrote:
Juan M. Mendez wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, I have been investigating.
It seems Adam Bryant developed a new version 5 of conquer:
http://www.cs.bu.edu/ftp/fs/pub/adb/beta/
where all the files hold notices disallowing redistribution of the
code with a
Juan M. Mendez wrote:
On 10/9/06, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without a piece of paper with Adam's signature saying otherwise,
the copyright remains with him. So Ed should ensure he does not
change the copyright notice.
snip
So, I have been investigating.
It seems Adam
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence
given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers
recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it
would be wise to use emphasised text, at
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Those liabilities occur in either case, so they're not particularly
interesting to discuss. Doing something that is against the letter and
spirit of a software
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Just a quick chirp from a d-l lurker with a JD that the above is a pretty
common concept in consumer protection type laws and, as referenced, the
UCC.
Thanks for your input.
I did some focus group research for Microsoft a few years back where
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:06:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Anthony,
32 matches
Mail list logo
