Hello,
On 10/05/2012 01:04 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Grahame Grieve (grah...@healthintersections.com.au):
well, ok, but on what grounds would copyright not apply?
I believe Larry was asserting his view that a software licence consists
solely of functional elements, and no expressive
Hello,
On 01/03/2013 05:04 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
If you have concerns about someone’s conduct, you can speak to them
directly, you can speak directly to the list moderators, or you can
discuss the conduct on the list.
For those who feel the need to speak directly to the list moderators
it
Hello,
On 01/06/2013 04:23 AM, John Cowan wrote:
* *Direct contact*: it is always appropriate to email a list member,
mention that you think their behavior was out of line, and (if
necessary) point them to this document.
* *On-list*: discussing conduct on-list, either as part of another
Hello,
On 03/20/2013 06:03 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org writes:
* Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org [2013-03-17 10:58]:
I agree that these should be served as plain text without the CMS
header/footer/etc., but don't (offhand) see a way of doing this in the
CMS. Any lurking Drupal
On 12-05-13 08:08, MURAKAMI, Keiko wrote:
Hi everyone,
We've been developing an application on Eclipse Framework with libararies
covered under LGPL, GPL and Apache licenses.
These libraries are jxl.jar(LGPL), servlet-api.jar(GPL v2) and
stepcounter(Apache) and so on.
When we deliver our
Hello,
On 03/17/2014 06:24 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 16/03/14 13:31, Sebastian Hoffmann wrote:
I think, Wikipedia for instance treats screenshots in the meaning of
derived work, which is sometimes covered by OS licenses.
As a result the screenshot has a remark (when you click on it), that
Hello,
On 04/01/2014 10:44 PM, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
In a legal system where PD is not recognized, e.g. Europe, then the effective
portion of CC0 is presumably not
the PD declaration but the permissive license. As other posters have noted,
that permissive license
is not perceptibly different
Hello Karl,
On 02-05-14 14:55, Karl Fogel wrote:
This thread on GitHub gets (needlessly?) complicated. It's about a
public-domain software work put out by the U.S. government, and there's
no clarity on whether calling it open source and citing the OSI's
definition of the term would be
Hi,
On 10-06-14 16:10, David Woolley wrote:
On 10/06/14 06:51, ChanMaxthon wrote:
I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.
I think people are missing the point here. Assuming the requestor has
used the service, this is a clear violation of clause 13 of the AGPL,
9 matches
Mail list logo
