Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's say that the library has two things you can get, the texinfo
source files and a pdf generated from them. People are unlikely to
print out the texinfo files, so they would naturally try to print out
the pdf. So the library sets the do not print
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
This is very different from EULAs because with them the end user gets
*less* rights that normally given by copyright
The rights normally given by copyright are virtually nil; you
a-z A-Z on it.
Sure you can. It's now full of shouting, and no longer in the
preferred form for modification. No license can reasonably
distinguish between tr and gnupg -- distinguishing indent is hard
enough.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
G026 / Secure Technology Solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:45:43AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I find it hard to believe that anything produced by mechanical
transformation from a source is object form. Object form is machine
code.
I can not magically transform a text file
(for
example) me to give a lecture on the details of GNUtls, or to run a
web server which presents an interface to Perl.
-Brian
Footnotes:
[1] That is, modify and distribute it in non-free ways.
[2] Admittedly, an odd case.
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
quite enough. Since
the GPL has few restrictions on functional modification, it's not much
of an issue there. A document license has a broader problem: the
first person to crack it open would be violating the DMCA to do so.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
gain no competitive
advantage from innovation. Software gets developed only to scratch
personal itches.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:23:26AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
* There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
than your competitors can copy them, you gain
infringe my right to dispose of my physical property.
-Brian
Still not a lawyer.
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:37:54PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
* There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
than your competitors can copy them, you
glue code? The kernels
of each of these servers?
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:46:57PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
As I said: existing mechanisms of licensing Free Software (e.g. GNU
GPL and MIT/X11) provide an impetus for improvement. A
compulsory-sharing license, as might bring us closer
which wasn't expected by
several authors, including the FSF, and to which they are reactively
objecting.
That, in itself, makes a good argument for why the author should have
no ability to place an obligation on anybody under a Free Software
license.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups
to set up a
shell server for some friends.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
.
The freeness of a license should be as divorced as possible from
accidents of implementation.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
stuff, we could back up a step? This all really an
and more complicated rules related to mechanism, and getting more and
more specific to their particular implementation.
I've CC'ed this to a LaTeX person - any comments from the LaTeX crowd?
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
to GNU/LaTeX, and I think you're set.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
additional requirements over the GPL, so they may not be
distributed linked.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
bts Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference
bts card from
you may add your own. If there
is other information regarding support from or contact information
for the Current Maintainer, you may treat it under the
other terms of this License.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
c. The Current Maintainer may have included an offering of technical
support for his work, labelled Support Information. You must
remove any such offerings, though you may add your own
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:05:48PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But the issue here is not copying or modifying an existing card, but
deriving a reference card from the Emacs manual.
If the documentation was licensed under the BSD license, wouldn't
. Distribution in a closed, hard to modify format such as
PDF, generated HTML or PostScript, or a Microsoft Word document
should always be treated as Object Code.
I hope that's useful to you.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
iain d broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether
you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by
itself. To use the GPL, though, you should probably put
software.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
be saved in a Free format?
Since these are just suggestions from the author, I see no harm in any
of these.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
, and the DFSG is
respected. Neither of those seems like a good reason for the GFDL to
change. I think your argument could be much stronger if it included a
because we're right paragraph.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
and
Free Software'' and ``with the Invariant Sections being Stabs Types
and Stabs Sections''
How can the sample GDB Session possibly be a Secondary Section? Or is
this just a good example of how confusing the Invariant Section rules
can be, even to the FSF?
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
(allowing modification
and distribution), as long as you don't include the name GPL, the
Preamble, or the instructions for use. If Debian's going to
eventually remove invariant sections, it's possible that the included
copy of the GPL should have those sections removed as well.
-Brian
--
Brian T
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:22:27PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
However, the legal text of the GPL is reusable (allowing modification
and distribution), as long as you don't include the name GPL, the
Preamble, or the instructions for use.
What
As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed
for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions
from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it. It is simply a
matter of respect that is due the author.
Respect is due; but it is up to
Jonathan Fine said:
The proposed new LPPL discriminates between person(s) who
are the Current Maintainer, and those who are not.
I have suggested that this is against Debian guideline 5 -
non-discrimination.
Two contributions have said, for various reasons, that the
guideline does not
.
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
towards the copyright
holder involves the discrimination clause. The discrimination clause
is more commonly used to prohibit software which is licensed as, for
example, MIT/X11, but only if you do no work involving a nuclear
power plant or Free for non-commercial use only.
-Brian
--
Brian T
works which the authors would rather have
proprietary, but which they can't distribute except under the GPL?
Thanks for taking the time to explain this system to the Common Law
folks here.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
No he can't. His placing
, and if not
obey the wishes of the original authors.
-Brian
[0] Which, btw, has many extensions over POSIX or BSD grep,
so there is not, AFAIK, an alternative implementation.
Alternatively, put gcc or your favorite GPL program in
its place.
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
should either use the normally part of your OS exception, or if
distributed with GNU grep be itself available under the GNU
Stephen Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
should either use
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is* a
barrier, Debian *can* be used for real work and not just
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Wait. Isn't dpkg under the GPL? Now everything on the entire system
has to be under the GPL, because you can't even get it installed
without
the use of dpkg.
I don't see how
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 09:52 AM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Let's take a concrete example: apache-ssl. In particular, it's
postint.
It uses adduser, which is under the GPL. It also uses update-rc.d,
also under the GPL. So, as above, we have
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:20 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, then I take it you're in favor filing seriouss bug against
ftp.debian.org asking for the removal of apache-ssl and *many* more
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This problem is unfortunate, but no worse in the case of two ways of
using the GFDL than with a pair of two different free software
licenses.
But no pair of licenses is claiming to create a shared commons.
Heretofore, the FSF has been claiming to
of
the client libraries.
It seems at that point that it would be easier to just put it under
the LGPL.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 02:51:31PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Would it be reasonable to ask them to snapshot the OSI license list
with every release? This would ensure that the permission to link isn't
retroactively revoked by a third party
the object?
The compiled binary is clearly the only possible form for the
modification I've just performed.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's true that the GPL wording implies that there is a single
preferred form,
Yep. The GPL was designed for compiled programs, and it shows in
several places.
The relation between a xcf and a gif is precisely one
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nonsense. I edit multiple images into a single image all the time,
but rarely save an XCF file: multiple layers live in the
image-editor's memory, but never hit the disk. There is no persistent
form which represents
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 09:52:17PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Hello debian-legal,
Suppose I remove all the non-invariant sections of a GFDL document that
have some sections marked invariant.
Are the invariant sections still secondary?
I
have copyrighted silent pieces of music, for example. There
is also the emerging field of nanofiction, which is confined to 55
words or less. Many of Emily Dickinson's poems are shorter than that,
and each would receive separate copyright protection.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
to works. They'd presumably
consider all the manpages in the csound package to be a single work,
and have each refer to a central gfdl(8) page.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
idea for
you to independently write one.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
. And despite your repeated rants about references, there's still
nothing that says and adding an extraneous symbol voids your copyright.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, are you suggesting that freedom would be better served if the GNU
manifesto provided for modification? Note the manifesto's license:
Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim
copies of this document, in any medium,
protecting other Title 17 rights.
-Brian
I do agree with your broader point that if we can ship libdvdcss, we
can ship applications that use it.
I also agree that, if it's feasible, a lawyer's advice would be useful
here.
Thomas
--
Brian T. Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
DMCA 1201(a)(1)(A): No person shall circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Your interpretation would make the access-circumvention provision
almost useless: it would mean it only mattered when preventing access
to illegally copied works. Which, hey, is a reasonable law
are not
software
You really wouldn't want us to insist on shipping the non-software
versions. Apt-get really bogs down when asked to process 20 lb A4.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
appreciated -- I might be able to talk upstream into
adjusting the license before releasing, if it is necessary to satisfy
the DFSG.
Thanks in advance,
--
Tore Anderson
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
are added. Similar
things have happened with software.
But you have to go and find a copy from before the proprietary section
was added. With a normal combined work, you can just remove the
proprietary code and take the clearly marked (heh) BSD code.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
against a use
model, such as running nuclear power plants. This is discrimination
against both a business model (web services providers) and a use model
(providing access to computers over a network).
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
M. Drew Streib [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
out of networked environments. If they succeed in promulgating these
ideas, they'll hinder growth of networked systems. Perhaps a good way
I could agree with you, except
argument: that a restriction in addition to those imposed by copyright
law is necessarily non-free.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:29:12PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I wish to address a very narrow part of this point: because copyright
protects only creative expression of ideas, and because legal
terminology is intended to be strictly denotative
Sergey V. Spiridonov said:
Branden Robinson wrote:
After all, what utility would this distinction serve beyond providing
one a means of routing around the DFSG's inconvenient restrictions?
Program (code) is not of great value outside computer, except examples
which usually belong to the
Said Wouter:
I'm not saying we have to do that. I'm only saying we have to decide
whether or not the rules for declaring documentation to be free should
be the same as the rules for declaring computer programs to be free,
and if not, what the rules for declaring documentation to be free have
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:22:25PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Said Wouter:
In fact, if the debian-legal group were to decide all by itself that
software and documentation are essentially the same thing, I'm
afraid a fork would be much more
, such as replacing the Emacs 21 manual with an edited Emacs 19 manual.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
distribute against fields of endeavor on the other.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 07.08.03 in [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Additionally, the FSF
is not alone by claiming software isn't the same thing as
documentation; international agreements and
and
documentation should meet different criteria of freeness, surely there
would have been a debate over whether the BSD, GPL, and Artistic
licenses were free for Documentation.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
software license, such as the GNU General Public License,
to permit their use in free software.
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
the GPL
(e.g., Blender) does not give me any freedoms I didn't have before.
It merely gives me technical capabilities I hadn't had before.
You can't give me freedom. I've got it innately, unless I relinquish
it or it is taken from me by force.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 01:02:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:30:48PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said.
If you have bought it, what you have isn't
Andrew Pollock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I'm considering packaging up RIPE's whois server, and the closest thing I
can find to a licence in the source tarball is the contents of the COPYING
file, at the end of this message.
The only bit I'm unsure of is the last sentence. Does it
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the
Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in
Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is
?
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Keith Dunwoody [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order
thing. It is not as constructive or as
good as if he put it under the GPL or the MIT/X11 license, but it is
not evil. However, that work is not free, and Debian should not
incorporate it.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
a flaw in the GFDL.)
Actually, isn't there a complicated set of trademark and patent claims
preventing manufacture of a CD reader without paying money to Phillips
and some trade organizations? This may not be that ridiculous.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:25:27 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Less likely, though I certainly wouldn't say it's impossible, is a judge
ruling that without providing electricity, a working
,
and best solved with social means, not with precise technical phrasing.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is
essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product
alone.
Got any citations?
The license certainly
before I try this.
As long as there is creative expression in which sections I choose, I
retain copyright on that expression.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
cases (for
example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections
in documenation.
I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation.
Your argument has false premises. Want to try again?
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
You are incorrect. Copyright law limits how you may copy or
distribute the code. The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these
limits.
The GPL itself takes away nothing.
According to your statement, any license do not put
, can distribute a combined work of
Emacs and the Emacs Manual. I cannot distribute a package consisting
of Emacs and Brian's GFDL'd Emacs Manual, because the GPL does not
permit me to link my GFDL'd textcode with Emacs.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL
of a vi-worshipping author to,
say, add an invariant section in his math-in-lisp text on editor
choice, thus forbidding use of anything from that text in any Elisp
manual, is too much of a restriction to be Free.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-08-28 01:28:54 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Enjoy is not a term I would use to describe the process of
experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were
freely licensed, I would certainly be able to access, read,
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples,
offers a trade. Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU
FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade
him some permissions in exchange for
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law.
No, any given work may have slightly different restrictions in
different domains of copyright law, but from looking at a license to
see whether it tries
there is a mailing list or
SlashRMS server which is featuring an article summarized by: Debian's
going to force Emacs to be distributed without a manual. You need to
all go and vote, to prevent Debian and ESR from censoring RMS.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL
www.debian.org, and feel free to quote this
message.
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The ban on use of circumvention devices for copy-prevention schemes is
probably toothless, given the fair use doctrine. However, the
following activities banned by the DMCA are not copyright
licensed only under the GFDL Free
Software in the terms of the DFSG? Nothing else.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
1 - 100 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
