On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:57:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted,
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:57:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted,
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:57:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
> > The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
> > copyright to begin with.
> >
> > As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
> > can be
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:36:09AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
In a related thread somebody mentioned GPL wouldn't be good because
some people use LyX for commercial purposes. I'd imagine the only
thing being sold are the pdf or paper output (please let me know if
you think I'm wrong), and I'd
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:36:09AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
In a related thread somebody mentioned GPL wouldn't be good because
some people use LyX for commercial purposes. I'd imagine the only
thing being sold are the pdf or paper output (please let me know if
you think I'm wrong), and I'd
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:36:09AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> In a related thread somebody mentioned GPL wouldn't be good because
> some people use LyX for commercial purposes. I'd imagine the only
> thing being sold are the pdf or paper output (please let me know if
> you think I'm wrong), and
On Thursday 15 June 2006 06:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I have no doubt that in the current state of the law, the
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I didn't know that.
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their respective author, unless
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
On Thursday 15 June 2006 06:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I have no doubt that in the current state of the law, the
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I didn't know that.
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their respective author, unless
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
On Thursday 15 June 2006 06:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
> > Comments within
> >
> > On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as "Licensed
> >> under the GNU General
The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
copyright to begin with.
As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I have no doubt that in the current state of the law, the
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, you wrote:
> The real first question is whether a layout file can be covered by
> copyright to begin with.
>
> As I pointed out before, one good example is fonts. While their names
> can be copyrighted, the actual outline and metric files cannot be.
I didn't know
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
> Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
> have a copyright statement something like:
>
> "Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
> XXX license in the name of their respective author,
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
"Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
"Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar. Layout files
are code, so the GPL fits them well.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar.
This is fine by me. In fact, I think a lot of the uploaded files contain
copyright and license information.
Others might
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar. Layout files
are code, so the GPL fits them well.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar.
This is fine by me. In fact, I think a lot of the uploaded files contain
copyright and license information.
Others might
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as "Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2", or similar. Layout files
are code, so the GPL fits them
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as "Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2", or similar.
This is fine by me. In fact, I think a lot of the uploaded files contain
copyright and license information.
Others
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Oh, and Christian--I would suggest you be sure to make the copyright
info static with editing disallowed. Legal boilerplate is *not* the
place for community-wide editing!
Hmm... ok, I just
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately,
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed under the
GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar. Layout files are code, so the
GPL fits them well. Speaking for myself, I'd be hesitant to
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Oh, and Christian--I would suggest you be sure to make the copyright
info static with editing disallowed. Legal boilerplate is *not* the
place for community-wide editing!
Hmm... ok, I just
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately,
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as Licensed under the
GNU General Public License, Version 2, or similar. Layout files are code, so the
GPL fits them well. Speaking for myself, I'd be hesitant to
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
> > Oh, and Christian--I would suggest you be sure to make the copyright
> > info static with editing disallowed. Legal boilerplate is *not* the
> > place for community-wide editing!
>
> Hmm... ok,
On Friday 09 June 2006 07:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
> > I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
> > the average user is "sold" on the concept, enough to go through the
> > learning curve for the various tags.
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as "Licensed under the
GNU General Public License, Version 2", or similar. Layout files are code, so the
GPL fits them well. Speaking for myself, I'd be hesitant to
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately, IIRC wiki tags are
just enough different from HTML and other
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately, IIRC wiki tags are
just enough different from HTML and other
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort before
the average user is "sold" on the concept, enough to go through the
learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately, IIRC wiki tags are
just enough different from HTML and other
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
Ich konne ein bischen LaTex, aber keine Deutsch. Ich supposedlieren :-)
Deutsch gelernt auf Hochschule, aber neiiinnn!
Ok, that parody didn't come out as well as I'd hoped...
Nor did mine :-)
Well, I certainly enjoyed your neiinnn :-)
*
1) I don't know (and forget when I do know) all the shortcuts for
various
lines, heading levels and the like.
Hmm, ok I see. When it comes to remembering the markup, have you
ever noticed the icons just below the edit area? See here for instance
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Maria Gouskova wrote:
I think the PmWiki documentation page is very good
( http://wiki.lyx.org/PmWiki/DocumentationIndex
That's a good point. There's also a copy at the LyX wiki, which you can
always get to through a link at the bottom of the sidebar. However, maybe
that
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort
before the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through
the learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately, IIRC wiki tags
are just enough different from HTML and other tagging taxonomies that
it can be confusing
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
Ich konne ein bischen LaTex, aber keine Deutsch. Ich supposedlieren :-)
Deutsch gelernt auf Hochschule, aber neiiinnn!
Ok, that parody didn't come out as well as I'd hoped...
Nor did mine :-)
Well, I certainly enjoyed your neiinnn :-)
*
1) I don't know (and forget when I do know) all the shortcuts for
various
lines, heading levels and the like.
Hmm, ok I see. When it comes to remembering the markup, have you
ever noticed the icons just below the edit area? See here for instance
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Maria Gouskova wrote:
I think the PmWiki documentation page is very good
( http://wiki.lyx.org/PmWiki/DocumentationIndex
That's a good point. There's also a copy at the LyX wiki, which you can
always get to through a link at the bottom of the sidebar. However, maybe
that
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort
before the average user is sold on the concept, enough to go through
the learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately, IIRC wiki tags
are just enough different from HTML and other tagging taxonomies that
it can be confusing
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
Ich konne ein bischen LaTex, aber keine Deutsch. Ich supposedlieren :-)
Deutsch gelernt auf Hochschule, aber neiiinnn!
Ok, that parody didn't come out as well as I'd hoped...
Nor did mine :-)
Well, I certainly enjoyed your "neiinnn" :-)
*
1) I don't know (and forget when I do know) all the shortcuts for
various
lines, heading levels and the like.
Hmm, ok I see. When it comes to remembering the markup, have you
ever noticed the icons just below the edit area? See here for instance
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Maria Gouskova wrote:
I think the PmWiki documentation page is very good
( http://wiki.lyx.org/PmWiki/DocumentationIndex
That's a good point. There's also a copy at the LyX wiki, which you can
always get to through a link at the bottom of the sidebar. However, maybe
that
I've noticed with other wikis that it takes a considerable effort
before the average user is "sold" on the concept, enough to go through
the learning curve for the various tags. Unfortunately, IIRC wiki tags
are just enough different from HTML and other tagging taxonomies that
it can be confusing
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 02:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You ask a very good question, and to be honest I have no idea whatsoever
why people aren't sharing their layouts, but here's two gueses:
* People feel that their layout isn't good enough...
Yes,
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 11:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 02:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You ask a very good question, and to be honest I have no idea whatsoever
why people aren't sharing their layouts, but here's two gueses:
You could use the Creative Commons license if you wish, or any of many
other open licenses. If you wish to make it available for
incorporation in for-profit distributions, you might use the BSD
license or some such.
However, it is doubtful that a stylesheet is particularly easy to
enforce any
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 02:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You ask a very good question, and to be honest I have no idea whatsoever
why people aren't sharing their layouts, but here's two gueses:
* People feel that their layout isn't good enough...
Yes,
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 11:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 02:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You ask a very good question, and to be honest I have no idea whatsoever
why people aren't sharing their layouts, but here's two gueses:
You could use the Creative Commons license if you wish, or any of many
other open licenses. If you wish to make it available for
incorporation in for-profit distributions, you might use the BSD
license or some such.
However, it is doubtful that a stylesheet is particularly easy to
enforce any
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
On Monday 29 May 2006 02:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You ask a very good question, and to be honest I have no idea whatsoever
why people aren't sharing their layouts, but here's two gueses:
* People feel that their layout isn't "good" enough...
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 11:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2006, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Monday 29 May 2006 02:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> You ask a very good question, and to be honest I have no idea whatsoever
> >> why people aren't sharing their layouts, but here's two
You could use the Creative Commons license if you wish, or any of many
other open licenses. If you wish to make it available for
incorporation in for-profit distributions, you might use the BSD
license or some such.
However, it is doubtful that a stylesheet is particularly easy to
enforce any
Hi,
since on one hand people are all the time asking for layouts for
thisthat and on the other hand there are surely a lot of people who
have already written their own layout files I'm wondering how we could
share those layout files.
Should we simply add our layout files to the LyX wiki
Ingo Klöcker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should we simply add our layout files to the LyX wiki
(http://wiki.lyx.org/Layouts/Layouts)?
Yes, just do that,
If yes, then why are there almost no layout files available?
Don't know.
Is there a policy for adding layout
files (e.g. only layout
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
since on one hand people are all the time asking for layouts for
thisthat and on the other hand there are surely a lot of people who
have already written their own layout files I'm wondering how we could
share those layout files.
Should we simply add
On Monday 29 May 2006 02:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You ask a very good question, and to be honest I have no idea whatsoever
why people aren't sharing their layouts, but here's two gueses:
* People feel that their layout isn't good enough...
Yes, I don't think my layouts are good
Hi,
since on one hand people are all the time asking for layouts for
thisthat and on the other hand there are surely a lot of people who
have already written their own layout files I'm wondering how we could
share those layout files.
Should we simply add our layout files to the LyX wiki
Ingo Klöcker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should we simply add our layout files to the LyX wiki
(http://wiki.lyx.org/Layouts/Layouts)?
Yes, just do that,
If yes, then why are there almost no layout files available?
Don't know.
Is there a policy for adding layout
files (e.g. only layout
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
since on one hand people are all the time asking for layouts for
thisthat and on the other hand there are surely a lot of people who
have already written their own layout files I'm wondering how we could
share those layout files.
Should we simply add
On Monday 29 May 2006 02:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You ask a very good question, and to be honest I have no idea whatsoever
why people aren't sharing their layouts, but here's two gueses:
* People feel that their layout isn't good enough...
Yes, I don't think my layouts are good
Hi,
since on one hand people are all the time asking for layouts for
this and on the other hand there are surely a lot of people who
have already written their own layout files I'm wondering how we could
share those layout files.
Should we simply add our layout files to the LyX wiki
Ingo Klöcker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should we simply add our layout files to the LyX wiki >
(http://wiki.lyx.org/Layouts/Layouts)?
Yes, just do that,
> If yes, then why are there almost no layout files available?
Don't know.
> Is there a policy for adding layout
> files (e.g. only
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
since on one hand people are all the time asking for layouts for
this and on the other hand there are surely a lot of people who
have already written their own layout files I'm wondering how we could
share those layout files.
Should we simply add our
On Monday 29 May 2006 02:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You ask a very good question, and to be honest I have no idea whatsoever
> why people aren't sharing their layouts, but here's two gueses:
>
> * People feel that their layout isn't "good" enough...
Yes, I don't think my layouts are good
75 matches
Mail list logo
