[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
INVERT license.
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
INVERT and STENOG, and then distribute that
in general if you began by looking for an answer, instead of
guessing at one.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
frames as it runs -- which are
copyrightable. Where's the problem with this, exactly? Please
provide examples.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems to
be little creativity involved.
Sure there is -- but it's performed by the person who wrote the
plugin, as he sculpts the interface to fit to the host, and to provide
useful functionality to it -- not merely by itself.
-Brian
--
Brian T
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are
selected, coordinated
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 15:16, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That would seem to fit much better than derivative work, yes.
However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have little patience for superstitious beliefs, and less still for
people who claim to be defending the tender feelings of the ignorant.
But why use names correlated with evil when other options are
available which interfere less with Debian's
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 15:34, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Right, but since the plugin author clearly intended it to fit with and
accompany the host, there's no creativity on the part of the combiner.
And we're well back into argue it in court territory
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 14, 2003, at 22:18, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
For someone to later pair it with Emacs has no creativity, so that
packager hasn't earned a copyright, but the pairing is under copyright
Yes, but if there is no copyright generated
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this
copyright notice:
Copyright (C) /author/ (/year/). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
The main trick is to distinguish between the original full text SRFI
(the document) and the free software (document that excerpts or
derives from the document).
Sure, but if you take that tack, the prohibition of modification of
Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:28:10PM +0100, Jörgen Hägg wrote:
Somehow the swirl on this page seems familiar... :-)
http://www.elektrostore.com/
(The picture is here: http://www.elektrostore.com/Bilder/electro_loga.gif )
Hell that's not just familiar that's a blatent rip.
Don Armstrong wrote:
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
or contributory patent infringement, then any patent
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Brian Sniffen wrote:
Would the following be considered Free by anybody here?
If You institute litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
or a Contribution incorporated within the Work
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc files.
Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is
the problem.
If
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:12:13PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the RFCs, if Debian cannot live with different degree of freedom
depending on the nature of the software it brings (RFC are not
programs, and by nature, there is no point in being able to modify
freely a standard like RFCs)
Nonsense. You know well
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 21, 2004, at 21:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is not clear to me that this text talks about APIs at all.
It seems to be about the *internal* structure of a database, which -
in my opinion at
On Jul 9, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:54:05AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Package: ocaml
Version: 3.07.2a-2
Followup-For: Bug #227159
The compilers are also distributed under the QPL, which is
And ? What is the problem ? Even RMS and the FSF
201 - 220 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
