On 10/31/06, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Person C creates a driver knowing with properly names defines and
comments explaining why he does what and where to easily readable
structures of the register mappings of the hardware. Person C then
goes and obfuscates the code into
On 9/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Scanning through the RC bug list and there seem to be a lot of bugs of
the form foo is unsuitable for main because xyzzy license is non-free
and foo cannot be redistributed because of barbazquux.
I'm inclined to think there should be a
On 8/30/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... xor is patented.
For that matter, wikipedia currently lists five different patents
on perpetual motion devices.
The standards for getting a patent are low, and despite legal
practice to the contrary patents really should be treated as
On 8/30/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:32:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
...
Your objection, in essence seems to be
We should not believe X when we have no evidence that X
is true.
It seems to me that both of these statements are reasonable
On 8/30/06, Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly disagree with your arguments. It looks that we have
opposite way of thinking, so I will not reply to them, it is going to
nowhere. Don't worry, as I said, I won't continue searching for this.
When conversations go nowhere, it's
On 8/17/06, Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not reasonable to claim that we don't know the mpeg-4
is patented. It's well known.
In general, we do not know that filed patents are valid
patents.
In general, most patents which apply to programs that
run on general purpose computers
On 8/9/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
authors, but please note that some people have doubts about the legal
possibility to dedicate a work to the public domain under the Berne
Convention (that is to say, it's not even clear whether it's at all
possible to release something to the
On 8/6/06, Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree; I do not believe the GPL can cover dynamic linking. Dynamic
linking is mapping two separate binary objects into memory and
overlaying runtime-generated references based on a common interface of
string symbol names, *NOT*
A few days ago (22 Jul 2006), Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any opinion you get from debian-legal is not going to mean a thing to
either a court or a trademark office. For legal advice in general,
but especially for issues at the level of detail you are talking
about, you need to ask a
On 6/12/06, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
last post wins school of debate. People
On 5/24/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian only distributes software.
If software is defined as executable code, then no. If software is
defined as executable code + related data used by it + documentation +
everything else
On 5/19/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just
software, to be DFSG-free? Not that it's particularly relevant since
there isn't a huge amount under the Against DRM license, but...
I have not been able to figure out what Max
On 3/31/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even without including license texts, this leads to a huge file:
I'd start out with a copyrights directory instead of a flat copyright
file, if that's easier to organize and manage.
That said, I'd probably represent that directory in the package
On 3/30/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/27/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those ludicrous conclusions do not follow logically from the claim,
for such reasons as simple plane carriage not being a technical
measure under the relevant
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the
word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never
Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be
distributed, but that it is never Transparent.
I
On 3/28/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Worst case, you could read the open office source code to figure
out how [some of] these documents are stored.
These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications.
I see no reason
On 3/27/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the
context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been
specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license
not being a technical
measure under the relevant definitions presented here so far.
Which definitions would those be?
(Note: I've said a few more things about definitions of this phrase
further down.)
[Raul Miller wrote:]
When the license disallows you from controlling copies, you have
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where
[with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could
be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is
widely available,
Why does it matter whether the
On 3/26/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
If we're going to go into the exact quote game:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
[...]
I think
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
prohibited.
Only
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where
a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available.
The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited.
Only if these copies
On 3/23/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We require that licenses don't discriminate against fields
of endeavor, but we have never considered the right to
distribute this free software in a non-free fashion a field of
endeavor.
I'm not convinced
On 3/22/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding
it in an executable, then making it available to users of a
multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled
(and only granting execute permissions
On 21 Mar 2006 00:59:55 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is
governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does
copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work
On 3/21/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case: if we interpret the FDL with the legal definition,
FDL'd works fail DFSG; if we interpret the FDL with your
bizarre literal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG. A null diff.
How?
Please spell out your reasoning here.
(1) I don't think my
On 3/21/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows
the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come
with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your
example).
I don't quite understand what you are
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and
distribute'.
An argument could be made that a person making a
copy available for other people to read under restricted
circumstances is not distributing that copy.
Note, however, that only
On 18 Mar 2006 22:46:24 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was rather obvious that I meant that in the sense of the
original scenario, and not in the general case.
I'm not sure what's not obvious in what I said.
You claim that the GFDL can not be taken to apply where
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have
written it oneself) and in I didn't find
On 3/19/06, Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of
freedom to merely distributable by Debian.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Your suggestion is a red herring
On 3/17/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
I can see some
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated
On 17 Mar 2006 14:29:18 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism
On 3/17/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for
working
with .c source code, in the general case.
If he is using
On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright
law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does
not apply.
Can you elaborate on where exactly copyright law
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to
do so, but the intent of this clause remains very clear.
This requirement does not apply when
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for working
with .c source code, in the general case.
If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the
preferred form for modification.
I don't know of any C
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not.
Things like
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but
if a marker pen can be classed
On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue.
It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted above
is clearly
On 3/16/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is all very well for the DFSG, but I just noticed that the DRM
restriction, read literally, prohibits placing copies on ftpmaster (since
access to those copies for most people is blocked by technical measures).
I believe that the
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
the phrase technical measures in the context of copyright law.
From the EUCD
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
the phrase technical measures in the context
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I don't think any special attempt to prevent the technical measures
themselves are necessary, since the GPL's source requirements already
did that: an encrypted, locked, unmodifiable copy is not source.)
Ok, but the legal right to modify a
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GFDL specifically says that it must clearly and legibly identify you.
Ambiguity and clarity are opposites, and pseudonyms do not identify you.
My dad's name is Ron Miller. Are you claiming that his name does
not identify him?
There's
On 3/13/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see why this is such a bad view of it. I've never thought the
DFSG-busting anti-DRM was clear-cut: it's mostly suspicion because RMS
refused to explain it. Justifiable suspicion, but suspicion even so.
I agree.
If someone threatens legal
On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
Oh?
I find myself quite uncertain as to what it is that you're talking about.
I see two issues mentioned in other messages, the DRM issue (the
technical measures
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
allowing licenses to effectively prohibit it. People say trust me, we
thought about this, but
On 2/16/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that
some software important to Debian would have
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't seem to contradict Branden's post. Feel free to discuss
it with him, though; I wasn't around at the time.
Eh... I think I remember that it was thrown in for Knuth's software,
thoughI don't remember the specifics of those licenses
On 2/16/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of the DFSG (expecially the patch close) show that the interpretation
of what free is was broader at the beginning than the current
interpretation of the DFSG (I am right to say that if this patch close
didn't exist; you would have said that a
On 2/14/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In every matter, it is virtually impossible to write a rule that can
mechanically be interpreted to give a suitable result.
I disagree.
It's impossible to cover all aspects of all cases, but obtaining
suitable results is entirely possible.
The
On 2/13/06, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you people never give up, do you? as soon as one bogus claim against
the GFDL is disproved, you recycle another one that was demolished
months, weeks, or only days ago. repeat ad nauseum.
Another possibility is that you're begging the
On 1/30/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't this cause problems when the code is forked? If someone in
France forks the code, then they have to travel to Scotland to defend
themselves against any frivolous lawsuits. That allows the original
licensors a bit more control over
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
You can still claim that the court in question does not have
jurisdiction over the parties.
You can claim that the moon is cheese too, if you want.[1] The point
is that in order for the court
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim
that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the
parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court to agree
that California is an improper venue, you
On 28 Jan 2006 11:32:08 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit that, under this logic, fees to execute software or create
derivative works are free since they are not mentioned anyhere in the
DFSG. The usual response to this is that Debian would be restricted
in doing things
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see why the licensor
should get to override the venue in *any* case where he's the one
instigating the lawsuit.
So what
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/28/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harrassing lawsuits are the extreme case. It's a similar problem with,
for example, honest but incorrect claims. I don't see
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey plonked Miller, gratis copies also fall under the first sale
(for which the trigger is nothing but ownership of a
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What argument?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
Plonk means I'm putting this person in my kill file ...
Obviously I didn't killfile you.
Ok.
When your words don't mean what we understand, we won't
understand
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What argument?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
Edwards has already explained it to you.
If you
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
Nor do bad intentions make a restriction non-free.
What makes a restriction non-free is that it
On 1/26/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit?
I've heard mention of the concept.
Have you heard of 425.16?
(It's visible at http://www.casp.net/cal425.html)
Ok, I'm assuming that free software is in the public interest, but I
don't
On 26 Jan 2006 11:07:02 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yorick Cool writes:
And for others it might change the rules in a non-costly way or not at
all.
Thus it is a form of discrimination. It imposes costs (conditional,
but still costs) on some people that it does not impose
On 1/26/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not at all convinced. First, I wonder if this choice of venue is
legal.
I think the question is not whether it's legal, but whether it's
relevant.
In some cases it is (for example, if someone takes action against
Adobe based on that license), in
On 12/30/05, Piotr Roszatycki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello.
I would like to know if it is possible to reditribute the Oracle Instant
Client in Debian's non-free archive.
...
This is old, but I didn't see any responses to this. So I'll spell out what
I think is the obvious answer:
This is
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including me...).
On 25 Jan 2006 20:48:29 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
If Adobe is going to take legal action against someone else,
they'll have to deal with the jurisdiction(s) where this someone
else has a presence.
Why do you say that?
You pretty much answered your
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
covenant to forbear from the exercise of the
On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MySQL has not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
irreparable harm. Affidavits
On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.
I think you've misunderstood the GPL is not a contract as meaning
that there are no obligations associated with re-distributing GPL
On 12/23/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(In particular, the GPL itself does not explicitly claim to be
irrevocable. The free software community generally believes it to be
_implicitly_ irrevocable, but that won't necessarily impress a court
faced with a plaintiff's argument:
On 12/16/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the following situation:
* Code (say MPEG encoder code) is considered to be covered by patents
* Those patents are considered to be actively enforced
* Code implementing an MPEG encoder is shipped in a source package
* This code
It seems to me that we have some responsibility for the licenses used
on these presentations.
It also seems to me that we should structure our approach to these
licenses similarly to the way we approach other license issues.
That is: we should encourage people to use a DFSG license, and we
On 11/4/05, Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Tangentially, could someone please clarify this: to pass on the work
dual-licensed, do you need to comply with both licenses, or does the
copyright statement attached to the work that you've legitimately
distributed under one of the licenses
On 9/27/05, James Damour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem lies in the realm of Copyright and Trademark.
I'd be tempted to use mecha instead of mech. Mecha
has a strongly established generic use tradition.
--
Raul
I think your points make a lot of sense, but you've made them citing
case law valid in a few specific jurisdictions.
A significant element of the concern that's been expressed has had to
do with international law.
In other words, while your points can diffuse some of the fear about
this issue,
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
question). But it does eliminate some scenarios.
Assume that programX is a complex (1 SLOC) program,
On 9/15/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The license on visual studio doesn't really matter here. What
matters is the license on the SDK (which has fairly generous terms
for stuff you write yourself).
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
** Raul Miller ::
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
question
On 9/15/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/15/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Microsoft SDK which has generous terms (what are they, BTW?)...
When you're talking about what you need to build generic programs
I said Windows program, not generic. A program
On 9/12/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assume every work eligible for copyright protection, for the
sake of the argument, and for $DEITY's sake. AND we're talking
ONLY about dynamic linking. AND, to boot, that those bits that
end up in a compiled work by way of
is correct.
All the assumptions above create a simplified model, that we can
refine later -- if we can come to any conclusion at all.
In other words, let's just start with the conclusion we want to draw?
Oh well, on to the questions:
** Raul Miller ::
On 09 Sep 2005 17:52:00 +0200, Claus Färber
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please use a non-broken mail program.
Quoting mutt's documentation all mail clients suck.
A corollary is that all mail clients can be considered broken, in
some fashion.
A corollary to that (and something of a truism in the context of
all
On 9/10/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please use a non-broken mail program.
Anyways, please say what you mean in a fashion that carries
useful information.
Thank
On 09 Sep 2005 17:52:00 +0200, Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The argument, simplified, basically goes like this:
1. Program A is licensed under the GPL. = Debian can distribute A.
Library M is licensed under the GPL. = Debian can distribute M.
Program B is a derivative of A,
On 8/27/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 27 August 2005 07:10 pm, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Some searching on the Copyright Office's website showed me this:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents
On 8/25/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable.
To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work,
their implementations are copyrightable.
But that's not what
(resend with better To: line)
On 8/26/05, Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[2] http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f - Open
Game License:Frequently Asked Questions. Do a page search of
compatibility.
Where they say:
The Open Game License expands the control a
On 8/24/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable.
To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work,
their implementations are copyrightable.
--
Raul
On 8/24/05, Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Section 7 of the OGL also states that:
You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any
Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work
containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in
On 8/22/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that the GPL says if you obey this license, you can do these
things that you otherwise can't do.
The OGL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that are
otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to bankrupt
On 8/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read, and am enlightened! To repeatedly disclaim authority, either
as a representative of the community or as a subject matter expert, is
to self-select as an authority! To acknowledge error, in response to
concrete evidence brought to
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can't even manage this issue in the context of a single
paragraph, what hope do we have of codifying protection
for newly thought up instances of this issue, in law?
That would be the reason that the integrity and competence of
On 8/4/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a _little_ more abstract than real property ownership, which is a
lot more abstract than possession of a chattel; but it's rather less
abstract than, say, ownership of a 401(k) account -- a device where
you have limited control of
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me
both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less
reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and economics.
Misrepresentations and charlatanry draw
1 - 100 of 1213 matches
Mail list logo
