On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 00:27, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
(...)
But if I just hand you a floppy disk with two files on it, program.exe
and COPYING, and ask nothing in return, what contract could of been
formed?
Ok, your point seems valid here, especially in private business and in
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:11:17 -0400, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The german law referenced in the bug report seems to be a prohibition
on certain kinds of propaganda. It does not explicitly forbid the word
pair in question [though cultural context clearly makes some people
sensitive
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 19:39, Michael Poole wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
The usual
I'm sorry, I messed something up with my mailer in the previous message.
This reply is in the correct thread (see below quote).
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 19:39, Michael Poole wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
of the kernel with
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 20:47, Michael Poole wrote:
Patrick Herzig writes:
The question is if the Linux kernel itself can be interpreted as being a
storage or distribution medium. Storage or distribution of binary
blobs is at least not the primary purpose of the Linux kernel as it
would
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 21:01, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Poole writes:
What does the primary purpose have anything to do with it? When I buy
a new computer, I do it because I want the functionality it offers --
not because it is a distribution medium for software.
To tie that into
On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 14:36, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
snip
Any law or
regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be
construed against the drafter will not apply to this License.
What the heck does this
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 16:28, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every*
software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the
dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:01:32 -0700, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
software, and the
I meant civil law, sorry.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 23:31:04 +0200, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:01:32 -0700, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Good point about warranty disclaimers, though
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:10:05 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
possible, I think, that a microprocessor company might want to modify
GCC to make it handle some new instructions that are highly
confidential, then
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:31:40 -0400, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
(...)
4. Your Author's Rights
The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your
contribution. By choosing to contribute to the
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:15:29 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright
license in question, but terminates on any lawsuit over physical
property. So if you're
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I'd really like to return to the question that got us all started. Is
calling the GPL a License Agreement a bug? Apparently my you have to
agree to the GPL anyway theory has gotten people all worked up... so,
obviously that's not going
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not the 19th century... the specific mechanics of a form are not an
issue like they once were. An agreement does not need to be written, or
shook on, or any of that signed, sealed, and delivered stuff.
Please note that I included
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
So yes, inquiring minds want to know.
And this inquiring mind is now satisfied as to what probably pays
RMS's rent lately -- the ~$268K Takeda Award he received in 2001.
(You couldn't keep a family in Cambridge for four years
On 01/10/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/05, Christian Jodar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
That's how (GNU General Public) virus is spreading. Yet another (brainwashed)
victim.
You should consider calling it the GNUish conspiracy. Without a catchy
name RMS will just
On 03/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do realize that even the FSF does not think that the GFDL is a
free license? They just don't think that freedom is as important for
documentation as in software.
That is totally untrue; see for example: http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html
On 10/02/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop repeating the fringe lie. -legal is open to all. It's just
I never affirmed that it's not.
Just that there has been a period when most debian-legal contributors
were extremists or outright loons like you,
FYI, Here's the full text:
Tue Jan 31 23:13:51 CET 2006
Savannah.GNU.org switched its policy
Today Savannah.GNU.org switched its policy about the licenses of the
hosted projects.
Since today every project must release its documentation under the GNU
Free Documentation License or any other
On 14/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps the word was inappropriate.
I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot;
Zealotry denotes zeal in excess, referring to cases where activism and
ambition in relation to an ideology have become excessive to the point
of being harmful to
On 16/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree. Any
opinion in contradiction with yours will be poorly defended.
Let's not. Let's say that you are wrong, or at least, that your
assertions are poorly defended. You're trying to
On 20/02/06, Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Simon, are you trolling?
Not intentionally.
(...)
Another reason was the following paragraph from autoconfs README.Debian:
No documentation, because the Debian project has decided that the GNU
FDL is not an acceptable license for
Maybe this thread helps:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00018.html
On 30/03/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Summary:
If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the
public domain, do I have to contact the author and let him clarify
24 matches
Mail list logo
