MJ Ray wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Choice of venue, which I regard as ability to cause payment for use.
This choice of law and venue makes the Quebec clause seem odd.
The Province of Quebec language laws require, amongst other things,
that all legal
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:09:36PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed.
I think this is a dubious claim
I think is speaks more to a light understanding of how Linux is licenced
and the OGL structured than anything else. If
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:44:55PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Given that we are all concerned about copyrights and having proof that the
code is free and not ripped off from SCO or whoever, identification seems to
be a worthy goal of free software, which must be
Francesco Poli wrote:
I think it is: Italy *is* a member of the Berne Convention and
consequently cannot have an author's right law that differs too much
from other ones in the Berne Convention area (AFAIK)...
Italy signed Berne in 1887, and became a party to Berne 1971 in 1979. I
would expect
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
My claim was: *Basically*, bits in .h files are not
copyrightable. Which I now solemnly amend to The kind of bits you
normally (99% of the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 04:25:37PM -0700, OSS wrote:
Maybe I should have been clearer, I was following a sublicence chain. I
don't see how a change to Lucent's liscense impacted the one already
granted to you, which then could be granted to me (in the abscence of a
term
Harald Geyer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:20:42PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
"Copyright 2005 by XYZ. The copyright holder hereby grants permission to
everyone, forever, to do anything with this work which would otherwise be
restricted by his exclusive
7 matches
Mail list logo
