On 09/09/2018 12:51 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
My understanding is that the entire operating system is delivered as
packages, and each package declares its copyright information in its
‘/usr/share/doc/$PACKAGENAME/copyright’ document.
That does raise an interesting question — things like the package
(from Jonas Smedegaard via the bug):
> One of several functions of Clementine is to stream audio from cloud
> service Spotify. Initially selecting that function triggers a routine
> where Clementine (asks for concent and then) downloads and installs a
> non-free binary driver.
>
On 06/08/2017 06:52 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
I'd prefer not to, because Message-ID reveals what I consider private
information (IP address or client hostname) to an unbounded audience,
and I believe that this is a greater privacy violation than the
lintian warning against downloading a
On 01/21/2016 05:09 PM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
There are licenses like the vim license which force developers to ship
their patches proactively to the upstream developers and thus possibly
to the public. If the vim license does not discriminate against a
certain field of endeavour this
Craig Southeren wrote:
This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the
GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer
distributed, then the source no longer has to be distributed either.
As a user, the seems more than a little unreasonable, but if
Craig Southeren wrote:
I'm not sure what an NMU is, but why are these not put into the SVN
archive?
A NMU (non-maintainer upload) is an upload by a person who is not the
maintainer of the package. Reasons for this happening are numerous;
trivial example is an urgent fix when the maintainer
Csillag Kristóf wrote:
Hi there!
As my master's thesis, I am developing a new Argument Mapping tool.
Cool. Will it become free software?
An ideal thread for my example would look like this:
- Revolts around one (or very few) basic decisions
I assume you mean 'revolves', not 'revolts'
Sorry for replying twice, but the LPPL (LaTeX Public Project License)
stuff --- the new version which was, in large part, driven by -legal,
would be interesting too.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Southeren wrote:
Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
see this as a problem.
Merging the NMU into the repository is up to the maintainer (he is,
after all, the one with commit access). Given Debian's persistent
problems with MIA maintainers, it —
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 12:19:05PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Section 3.2 is not the only problematic thing with the MPL license.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Agreed fully. MPL has more than one problem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:54:53PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
A problem would only occur if there was a Debian release that contained
source code that is is not in the SVN archive. Does this ever occur?
Security updates and NMU's come to mind.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Marco d'Itri wrote:
You first need to show that there are bugs and that the precedent
decisions are wrong. So far nobody actually managed to do this.
The MPL (section 3.2) requires that source code remain available for 12
after initial distribution or 6 months after distribution of a
Adam McKenna wrote:
That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one
copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on
multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more
than one copy at a time,
The plaintiff needs to
Adam McKenna wrote:
The exact text of the FDL is:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or
further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
For the purposes of this clause, there are two kinds of copies that can
be made.
1) Copies that are made, but
Adam McKenna wrote:
Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read
or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it
is not equivalent to having access.
If A depends on B then not doing/having B prevents A.
If you are not allowed to prevent A, then you
Eduard Bloch wrote:
---BEGIN QUOTE---
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Incidentally, this is what the dvdrtools folks have already done.
Ummm, come to think of it, why is dvdrtools in non-free while cdrecord
is in main?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Does the term technical measures as used in GFDL 2's you may
Don't you mean 1.2?
That should have a section in there: GFDL, Section 2.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
olive wrote:
Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML
file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies
(as you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is
not a generic text editor.
Actually, you can't edit an OpenOffice
Adam McKenna wrote:
Which kinds of non-distributional copying are not covered by fair use?
Making multiple copies for simultaneous use (e.g., installing on several
computers).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Saunders wrote:
and the fact that one shouldn't summarize threads
that are still active (I'll follow the 3 day rule [1] from now on).
May I suggest that for threads which are currently active, you
summarize them as something along the lines of:
[Name] brought up [issue, w/ issue
Adam McKenna wrote:
But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument that
the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about
documents here.)
Well, US copyright law at least gives the right to make a backup copy so
long as such new copy or
Dominik Margraf wrote:
http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/
and Wild Magic
http://www.geometrictools.com/License/WildMagic3License.pdf
Are the licenses of these libraries above compliant to Debian's
requirements?
Questions about the freeness of a license belong on debian-legal.
Anthony Towns wrote:
So, debian-legal is us, leaving the rest of the project to be
them?
When I'm sending a message to debian-legal, yes, I often use us to
mean the participants on debian-legal. I intend only to save a little
typing, nothing more.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
olive wrote:
Of course, the final authority on the meaning of a license would be the
Supreme Court (at least in the US).
Debian is an international project and not a US project. I don't think
that many non US Debian users or developer will be happy with that.
Would you agree if a say that
OK, I'd love to go with the interpreting the recent GR to mean as a
special exception, the GFDL is free. However, I'm not sure how I can
possibly interpret the GR and the Debian Constitution to make that
reading tenable:
First, the GR very clearly states,
... we also consider that works
Henning Makholm wrote:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the
copies you make or distribute [to him]
But how can we explain away make or?
I'm pretty sure I carefuly did so --- if you
Joey Hess wrote:
Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a
majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural
for the compromise to win, and not unheard of for it to end up 3.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I'm not exactly sure how else to proceed.
Walter Landry wrote:
You're right. I did not notice that. That makes the analysis much
simpler. The developers, in their wisdom, essentially changed DFSG
#10 to add the GFDL without invariant sections.
Unfortunately, DFSG 10 reads:
*
**Example Licenses*
The *GPL
MJ Ray wrote:
More than unfortunate, it makes that ambition impossible without
telepathy or further surveying, as far as I can see. There seems
little point just guessing what motives produced a pi=3 statement.
It isn't quite as bad as pi = 3, as there is certainly some abiguity in
both the DFSG
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I propose that the
Project is telling us that something along the following is the true
reading:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying
Joe Buck wrote:
That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years
is sometimes painful, as is the necessity to keep a transparent copy
available for one year. I did not understand why debian-legal found
the latter provision a DFSG violation.
We found both of them to be DFSG
Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm definitely not happy: on the contrary, I'm really depressed...
:-(((
Well, I must say I'm not depressed about it --- that'd be if Amendment B
passed. Or even got majority.
I can understand how the average developer can yell nitpicking! at a
lot of our objections to
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:23:32 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[...]
However, maybe once we come up with a way to reconcile the Project's
decision with the text of the DFSG and GFDL, we should ask the project
to approve it (assumably via GR).
I'm not sure I
Debian Project Secretary wrote:
The winners are:
Option 2 GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
Well, first off, I'm happy to see Option 3 failed to even meet majority;
chaos is preserved for another day.[0]
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus
olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component. It is reasonable to think that the use of
Debian requires the GFDL documentation.
Even assuming the above it is reasonable is true[0], the following
does not hold:
If Debian
Adam McKenna wrote:
I don't know of any device that rejects files of a particular encoding. Can
you give an example of such a device?
My portable music player barfs pretty badly on anything that isn't ASCII.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Craig Sanders wrote:
stop trying to pretend that convenience is a freedom issue. it isn't.
[snip]
it may be horribly inconvenient to not be able to usably install a
foreign language document on an english-only device, but that is UTTERLY
IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OR NOT.
Craig Sanders wrote:
the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
No, it does not.
Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added:
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
of patch files with the
Craig Sanders wrote:
if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into
the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document
along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or
a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I bet another EURO 50 (through PayPal) that Red Hat and Novell are
also going to lose and won't get dismissal under 12(b)(6).
I wish I could play, but I'm pretty sure wagering like that is illegal
in the jurisdiction I live :-(
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
olive wrote:
Of course you can. You just keep the bytes representing the Japanese
version intact even if these does not display properly on your device.
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, UNALTERED IN
THEIR TEXT and in their titles.
I think changing 標準語 to æ¨æºèª would
Craig Sanders wrote:
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying
the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT
DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We have already discussed many examples, if you have some new example
you are welcome to share it with us. :-)
I don't recall the following example being brought up.
Let's assume a manual, written by
Raul Miller wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
The big deal here is that if someone sues Adobe, Adobe
doesn't have to incur huge legal fees defending themselves.
Since it's free software, why
olive wrote:
Does the fact that the fonts cannot be sold separatly is compatible with
the DFSG?
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling [...] the software as a component of an AGGREGATE SOFTWARE
DISTRIBUTION containing programs from several different sources.
Francesco Poli wrote:
For instance, names such as STIX++, STIXng, newSTIX, STIXER, STICS,
STHIX, and so forth, are banned by the above clause, but they are
*different* from the original name, and thus comply with the maximum
DFSG-allowed restriction on names.
OTOH, were STIX a trademark
Frank Küster wrote:
Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it
so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
conclusive evidence...
Well, the definitely filed for it. Go to
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, click on SEARCH trademarks,
Tobias Toedter wrote:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify\n
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by\n
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at\n
your option) any later version.\n
\n
This program is
We should start a betting pool[0] on when Wallace v. FSF will be
dismissed (again). The winner, of course, gets nothing but recognition
of being the winner :-D
[0] Not really betting as nothing of value would be involved.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
I'm not sure if it's license (
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=293346 ) can be considered
free enough to be in main:
FYI, the right place to ask this is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moving it over there. Full-quoting because of this.
Summary: I don't believe this is a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It doesn't have to be the case for an action under 16 of the Clayton
Act for threatened harm caused by violation of 1 of the Sherman Act
to succeed.
Well, there is not much point in debating it: I suspect we'll have a
court ruling on the FSF's motion to dismiss his
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Well, Wallace v GPL aside for a moment, regarding misstatements of the
copyright act in the GPL, here's a quote from Lee Hollaar (the author of
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html):
I think if you want to suggest to the FSF that the language
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway
(antitrust violation - copyright misuse - quasi
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science
perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of
various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive
policy decisions based on thin air?
No.
Sean Kellogg wrote:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
you changed the files and the date of any change. Doesn't this violate the
Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian state citizen?
No, because the following statement is allowed
Michael K. Edwards wrote (with spacing fixed):
2) the 50% rule applies to _authorship_, which connotes (per
Aalmuhammed v. Lee) a degree of creative control so high that, e.
g.,there is no candidate for authorship of the Linux kernel other
than Linus Torvalds;
I've read the cited case, and it
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets on
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
at
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoops, I misattributed that message. It's Brett Glass who wrote
that, NOT Theo de Raadt. :-(
And after Googling Brett Glass briefly, I doubt he has much concrete
evidence to back up his claim that RMS
As well as the dual-licencing issues Andrew mentioned, I'd like to point
out a more serious issue: What is the expected use of this tagging?
Personally, I can see two uses, neither of which this tag as proposed
seems to cover well:
1) I am looking to find a some code with a compatible licence
Raul Miller wrote:
But we're doing more than distributing the tarball. The tarballs we're
distributing have been modified so that the user need only type a
couple commands, and (using software we've provided) the
binaries are reconstituted on their machine.
So what? First off, the GPL gives us
Raul Miller wrote:
Which can occur if anyone redistributes any of the I_WANT_OPENSSL
debian packages.
No, most likely even that would be fine. Since Debian packages are
intended to be used with Debian, and Debian ships OpenSSL, third parties
get to use the GPL's exception for things distributed
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
But note that in principle the
creation of derivative works can be infringement even if they are not
distributed, and I haven't dug through case law to see exactly how far
17 USC 117 can be stretched from run-time use to local builds.
Thankfully, you need not do so; GPL
Raul Miller wrote:
That works only if they don't distribute libssl with it.
Sure. Same as for Debian. If you distributing software, open source or
not, you need to read and follow the license.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Raul Miller wrote:
Are you claiming that we have a license to distribute the work based
on the program Quagga which also contains and uses openssl?
In source code form, yes, we do under sections 1 and 2 of the GPL. The
the source code for all modules it contains is part of section 3,
which
Raul Miller wrote:
If distribute meant distribute in the form of debian packages as
defined by the semantics of dpkg as opposed to distribute whatever
the mechanism, we'd be golden.
As long as we don't distribute GPL'd code linked with OpenSSL in object
code or executable form, but only as
James William Pye wrote:
[Sent to license-discuss as another letter, and please CC me.]
It's longer, but, all in all, I think it makes it a better license:
The exercise and enjoyment of the rights granted by authorship
is authorized provided that this instrument is retained
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
%% Copying of this file is authorized only if either
%%
%% (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy, including name and
%% directory name
%% (2) if you do make changes,
%% (a) you name it something other than the names included in the
%%
Andrew Suffield wrote:
If you want to propose an alternate set of guidelines for some subset
of the works in Debian, here's what you need to do:
Append at the end:
- Discuss it on -project(?). Once you've worked out any problems with
your proposal, and feel you have enough support...
- Propose a
Andrew Suffield wrote:
It could also be fraud, or (strangely enough) in some jurisdictions,
copyright.
That's really not that weird; the US is one of those jurisdictiosn, for
example (though only for some works, oddly enough). Sec. 106a.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative
work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with ld is
completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm
not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it
Please post license texts to -legal, not just URLs. This makes them
easier to comment on and preserves the relevant information in our list
archive.
I grabbed the following from http://www.bittorrent.com/license/ on April
2, 2005 @ 0455 EST.
BitTorrent Open Source License
Version 1.0
This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With the exception of the proposed fix for the DRM language (my problems
with it have been pointed out by others), I support this summary and
strongly encourage Creative Commons to resolve these issues.
Subject: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
That is not a copyright notice, at least in the US. Title 17, Sec.
401(b) gives the form of a notice fairly clearly: The symbol , the word
copyright, or the abbreviation copr.; the year of the first
publication of the work; and the name
[Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
Indeed, I agree that it's extremely distasteful for a license to
Humberto Massa wrote:
Yes, you could start with this document is (C) its contributors as
defined in the file AUTHORS ...
That is not a copyright notice, at least in the US. Title 17, Sec.
401(b) gives the form of a notice fairly clearly: The symbol , the word
copyright, or the abbreviation
Glenn Maynard wrote:
It'd be useful to have a real-life example of a server that
needs to be sent proprietary data for a legitimate reason (in the
sense that a device needing to be sent firmware is legitimate).
Habeas SWE.
I believe SpamAssassin implements the server side (through hashes to
avoid
Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is questionable. I modify your work, removing a feature that somebody
likes, and sell it. That somebody, as a result (caused by the act) of me
removing that feature in my redistribution, decides to sue you for allowing
me to do so.
You only idemnify the author to the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
It'd be useful to have a real-life example of a server that
needs to be sent proprietary data for a legitimate reason (in the
sense that a device needing to be sent firmware is legitimate).
Habeas SWE.
I believe SpamAssassin implements the server side (through hashes to
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
there is a written agreement involved, a court will only find an
implied license as an implied provision in that agreement. As I wrote
before, if anyone can
Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is questionable. I modify your work, removing a feature that somebody
likes, and sell it. That somebody, as a result (caused by the act) of me
removing that feature in my redistribution, decides to sue you for allowing
me to do so.
You only idemnify the author to
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
So would a web-based firmware loader, that never saved the firmware to
disk allow the drivers to be in main?
Of course not. It's fetching software, then using that software. ICQ
software merely mentions messages, but doesn't use them.
ICQ uses the messages as
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:02:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The social contract says ...but we will never make the system depend on
an item of non-free software. not but we will never make the system
depend on an item of non-free software /which we must distribute
Josh Triplett wrote:
I would like to suggest an additional option, which I think covers most
cases quite well:
If Debian were to package (a copy of) the non-free item in the non-free
section, would the Free package express a Depends, Recommends, or
Build-Depends on the non-free package? If
hmmm, wasn't non-us on different servers? If so, would that work? (does
it still even exist?)
Don Armstrong wrote:
However, I've maintained that even if that is the case, we still can't
activate this clause because OpenSSL is not normally distributed (in
either source or binary form) with the major components.
That seems to be the easier half. The major components of Debian are
Glenn Maynard wrote:
icq-client does require access to a server to be useful, but there's no
expectation that that server be installable by the machine running the
client; the lack of an icq-server package is not a piece missing from
the client.
So, then, a solution would be:
a) Set
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:26PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Yet the ICQ client is not useful without a component which is not in
Debian and in fact is not freely available.
Nor is a driver useful without a piece of hardware which isn't in
Debian.
Of course, license
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That would, however, cover firmware and wind up sending X to
contrib. So maybe: ... iff it is stored on the local machine's file
system.
That would be my *intuitive* understanding of how the mail/contrib
difference works
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's not software. That's firmware, at best -- you can look at it
as software, but then you don't get to distribute any drivers. It is
also internally consistent to think of chips as hardware and
distribute drivers appropriately. It is never consistent to think
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But in the case of the DFSG and the GPL it does. Saying You may not
distribute this work along with a frame designed to hold it violates
DFSG 1.
But saying You may only distribute this work with a frame designed to
hold it if that frame is freely distributed is
Alessandro Rubini wrote:
Actually, I've never heard the FSF claim that the _source_code_ of a
program using a (black-box) library is derived from the library. What
it claims is that the executable is derived from both,
Maybe there is some confusion here between derived in everyday
language
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Compare, for example, a painting. If I make a painting with a 5' by
3' hole in it, that is not derivative of Starry Night.
Even if I paint in complementary art such that if you put SN in there,
it looks nice, that's probably not derivative. But if I bolt the two
Andrew Suffield wrote:
This does appear intuitively to be the correct answer for the case
where two otherwise non-derivative works are combined into a single
binary. They don't magically become derivatives, invoking that clause
of the GPL, but you still have to follow its rules for binary
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the correct term for a work that combines two other works,
created without creative input?
An anthology, or a compilation, I think.
From Title 17, Sec 101:
A ''collective work'' is a work, such as a periodical
Don Armstrong wrote:
I think we've been here before, done that, and have sold off all of
the t-shirts to help finance the non-existant black helicopters.
Of course there are no black helicopters, -legal helicopters are
actually midnight blue ;-)
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If your library has a well-specified API, anyone could make a library with the
same API, and his client could use that. Under those circumstances, his
client is not a derivative work of your library (although it may be a
derivative work of the *API and other
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
See
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/ecommerce/digsig.html
I think you meant:
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/ecommerc/digsig.html
Unfortunately, the link to the directive on that page is 404 compliant.
From the 2.0.10 - 11 patch:
+ /*
+
+ This code has been modified from its original form by psoTFX @ phpbb.com
+ Changes introduce the back-ported phpBB 2.2 visual confirmation code.
+
+ NOTE: Anyone using the modified code contained within this script
MUST include
+ a relevant
1 - 100 of 641 matches
Mail list logo