[no subject]

[Erik Schanze]

Hi!

[Please keep me in CC, Im offlist.]

I heared of a (new) PVR device "Reel Multimedia PVR 1100"
-> http://www.reel-multimedia.com/
which runs on Debian and vdr.
They offers only sources of vdr and a prepared root fs. There are no other
sources of related software nor kernel (-config) available.
They declared to do this end of March, 
->
http://www.reel-multimedia.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=286&sid=6193b4f7240c913429234895cdf42a27
but nothing more happens so far.

Could anybody please look over this situation and give hints to
deal with it?

Should I or any Debian "official" representative asks (polite!) they for
offers all the GPL sources and an explanation with parts from Debian
are involved?

Kindly regards,
Erik

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
www.ErikSchanze.de * DSA key ID 30825345 
 Bitte keine HTML-Mails! * Maillimit: 100 kB

Weitersagen: GMX DSL-Flatrates mit Tempo-Garantie!
Ab 4,99 Euro/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[Rickie Crews]

Hello, 

Here is the website you wanted to visit
We carry only the highest quality Replica Watches

here are a few of your selections
Cosmograph SilverDaytona-BlackFace
Day-Date Silverband-SilverfaceDiamondNumbers
Datejust Silver/GoldBand-GoldFaceDiamondNumbers


http://pkok.besttimewatchesonline.com

[no subject]

[Jutta Wrage]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

HI!

To make cryptoinmain.en.html strict HTML, I have done some changes  
(not ot the content)


can you please compare

URL http://www.us.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain.en.html
with URL http://www.witch.westfalen.de/debian/dwww/legal/ 
cryptoinmain.en.html


The patch is at http://www.witch.westfalen.de/debian/diff/ 
cryptoinmain-20051023.diff


If the questions look okay and there are no objections, I will commit  
the change on monday.


greetings

Jutta


- -- 
http://www.witch.westfalen.de

http://witch.muensterland.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkNbo0EACgkQOgZ5N97kHkcT4wCgjXWKDTv0jziHvnZ0+aqXX8Ne
xHcAnjzDXhFQNfqE7e0GbYAWVYCFLuS3
=VcZ4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[Emmanuel Colbus]

Lewis Jardine wrote: 
> > 1) Is it legal?
> 
> I can't answer that one (and even if I could, I'd probably be wrong or 
> overlook something). 
> If you're planning on using this license for something important, you should 
> probably 
> see a contract lawyer with qualifications in French and American law.
> 

Oh yes, of course. But it's enough for me to haven't received any notice of a 
clearly illegal
point, as i'm absolutely not planning an important use for this license.

(Btw., just for information, why do you think American law would be involved 
here?)

>   2) Is it free? 
> 
> 
> My French is not wonderful, but if 9 does indeed allow relicensing under the 
> GPL in all 
> situations, then I think a document under this license would be DFSG-free: 
> it's my 
> understanding that as long as a work has one set of terms that is Free, a it 
> is considered 
> to be Free, even if it can additionally be licensed under terms which are not.
> 
> (Example: GPL's section 3c is non-free, as it forbids commercial 
> redistribution. This 
> isn't a problem though, because 3a (which is free) can be used instead).
> 
> If it can be GPLed only under certain circumstances, then we have to look at 
> the 
> GFDL+permissions license, which I don't think I'm qualified to do.

No, it's allowed in all situations. My main concern about this was that such 
relicensed copies
could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is 
supposed to apply to
software, not to documents.

> 
> > 3) Do you find some concerns into it?
> 
> Clause 13 appears to be a mandatory upgrade clause: there doesn't seem to be 
> any way 
> to license a work under version 1.0 only. Upgrade clausing in the license is 
> comparatively unusual: it's most often seen in asymmetric licenses like the 
> NPL, 
> where it can be used to grant additional permissions to the license author 
> that 
> they might have forgotten about. Authors may be concerned that the author of 
> this 
> license can arbitrarily relicense their works
> 
> The more common way of doing an upgradable license is to not mention 
> upgrading in 
> the license at all, but rather in the copyright statement for the work; this 
> way 
> any author that does not want their work to be upgradable can simply use a 
> different 
> copyright statement.
> 
> Example: the GPL's suggested statement of '...under the terms of the GNU 
> General 
> Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 
> of 
> the License, or (at your option) any later version.', which can be replaced 
> by 
> '...under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the 
> Free 
> Software Foundation; version 2 of the License only.'
> 

Right. I'll fiw this.

Thank you very much!

Emmanuel Colbus



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[urban]

Einfarbige Drucke / Kopien s/w, blau, gruen oder rot ab 1 Cent 
Farb - Drucke / Kopien ab 8 Cent 

Sie benötigen z.B. 5000 s/w einfarbige Drucke Ihrer Vorlage innerhalb eines 
gewissen Zeitraumes. 
Wir erhalten Ihre Vorlage, legen den Preis an Hand der Listen auf 1 Cent pro 
Blatt fest. 
Sie erordern innerhalb eines Jahres jeweils nur so viele Drucke wie Sie zu den 
jeweiligen Zeitpunkten  
Benötigen. Zum festgelegten Preis von 1 Cent. 
Selbstverständlich können jeweils Teile Ihrer Vorlage auf den aktuellen Stand 
gebracht werden 
ohne zusätzliche weitere Kosten. 

z.B. im 1ten Monat 400 , im 2ten 1100 , im 3ten 20 usw., bis Ihr Kontingent 
verbraucht worden ist. 

Dies gilt auch wenn wir Ihre Drucke zu z.B Vereinsheften falten und heften. 

Vorraussetzung hierfür ist, das wir Ihre Vorlage digital speichern dürfen. 

Genaue Informationen unter www.i-druck.eu 

MFG 
H. Urban 

Euregio-Verlag 
Postfach 1136 
52526 Übach - Palenberg 
Büro: Kinzweilerstr. 29 
52477 Alsdorf 
Tel.: 02404 - 955600 
Inh. Hartmut Urban 
Haubahn 3a 
42119 Wuppertal 
Postfach 13 24 36 
42051 Wuppertal 
Ust-IdNr.: DE 186 267 630 

Fax: 02404 - 67 777 11 
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

= LICENSE FOR 3D MEDIA =

I am a wannabe 3d artist and I created some works with blender, I 
would like to distribute them under a free (as in speech) license, but 
I don't know wich one is the best to use. There are a lot of discussion 
on forums of free games about the best license for their 3d media and 
there is not a clear answer.

I would like to apply to computer graphics the same concepts of free 
software (the 4 freedoms of free software) and I would like that others 
can reuse my work in their works.

I know that free software foundation says that art should not be free 
bacause art is a creative process, but I think that there are a lot of 
cases where the production model of software can be applied to computer 
graphics, for example it would be useful to have 3d models of 
standardized things (cars, motorcycles, computers, military vehicles, 
uniforms ...), textures of common materials, 3d Reconstructions of real 
or imaginary cities...

I evaluated these licenses: GPL, LGPL, CREATIVE COMMONS licenses, 
Blender Artistic license (from now BAL) (adapted from Perl Artistic 
license) and I have some doubts.

If there are other licenses that fit best my goal please report them.

= MIXING TWO OR MORE WORKS =
I think that reuse of models is important but if I interpreted 
licenses correctly reuse of models is problematic because there are a 
lot of models under different licenses and these models can't be mixed.

Software can link dynamically to a library and so it can use non-free 
libraries or free libraries under another license. The non-free library 
can be rewritten using the same interface (the interface isn't 
protected by copyrights).

3d models can't link dynamically (correct me if I am wrong) and they 
need to be linked with other things (a lot of other things), like other 
models, sounds, textures, files that describes the movements of the 
characters, settings of the materials, ...

Am I allowed to mix two models from a repository, for example model A 
under GPL, model B under BAL all togeter with a model C (that was 
created by me) in an animation? I don't think that I'm allowed.

Am I allowed to mix my model with a texture under a free license 
(license A) and distribute my model under a different license (license 
B) (specifying that the texture is under license A)? Are the textures 
linked dynamically or statically? What if I uv map a texture?

I see that the gpl3 draft tries to solve the issue of statically 
mixing works under different licenses, what do you think about it? Can 
the solution of gpl3 be applied to 3d works?

Does the cc-by permit to mix works under this license with works under 
other licenses?

Most of 3d games have modular characters that can wear different 
armour pieces and wield different weapons. If a make an armor for a 
character created for a game engine with this feature, is it linked 
dynamically?

Is a work created by mixing different models of different authors from 
a repository (for example a complex animation) considered a "collective 
work" by cc licenses? If it is, what is the difference?

There are some sites that publish free 3d models (like http://www.
katorlegaz.com/index.php?a=download&c=Blender_3D_Model_Repository) so I 
think that the reuse problem is the most important.


= RENDERED IMAGE =
Who is the copyright holder of the rendered image? Is it a derivative 
work or an independent work? (Blender aristic license says that the 
copyrights of the rendered image belongs to whoever generated them)

Is rendering like compiling a software for licenses like gpl?


== CONCLUSION ==
What is the best free license for 3d media?
Sorry if it has been discussed but searching your archive is 
difficult. In this case point me to the correct thread.


= LINKS =
http://download.blender.org/documentation/html/appendix_licenses_bal.
html
http://www.katorlegaz.com/index.php?
a=download&c=Blender_3D_Model_Repository





Naviga senza limiti con 4 Megabps di velocita' a soli 19,95 Euro al mese, 
ATTIVA SUBITO e hai 2 MESI GRATIS! 

In piu', se sei raggiunto dalla rete Tiscali, telefoni senza pagare il canone 
Telecom. Comincia subito a risparmiare!

http://abbonati.tiscali.it/prodotti/adsl/tc/4flat/ 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[Anthony Youngman]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:23:11AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote: > But
as I see it, they (QM) are adding an extra restriction, as > proscribed
by the GPL (clauses 6 and 7). > > "If you distribute to subsidiaries,
you may not stop them distributing > to the world". But the GPL
explicitly recognises internal distribution > as a case where the GPL is
not needed. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I can't even
find the word "internal" in the GPL. 


Sorry, my goof. I shouldn't be sloppy. It's the FSF faq. "Is making and
using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
<>  ". As I read that, it's simply saying that the "you" in the FAQ can
be a company, and as such internal distribution is just "use" and the
GPL doesn't apply.

Cheers,
Wol




This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain 
private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must 
not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, 
disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to 
inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately 
and delete the e-mail from your information system.

Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 8272 5300, 
Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 
2333.

[no subject]

[Rudeweargear.com]

Hey there, how are you.  I was seraching the 
web when I came across you guys.  I have a question if it isn't to much 
trouble.  I am starting a t-shirt company.  An original design t-shirt 
company(with name) which I am about to start selling.  Do I need to 
copywrite/license the name of my shirt company/product.  I registered it 
with the resister of deeds in my state of NC.  But I don't know about 
licensing.  Please let me know if this is something I need to do.  I 
just want to protect myself from someone saying in the future that they thought 
of my company name first, or that they sell this name to, etc.  Thank for 
for your time. ERIC

(no subject)

[Watchdog1470]

Hello i was wondering my brother got me a (visual boy advance) game emulator and a couple of yugi oh games but what i was wondering was is there any free gaming zones where i might be able to download as well as play any free games for the vba if so i would appriciate a list or even just one site thanks

[no subject]

[Franklin Mcknight]

Thu, 13 May 2004 09:03:20 -0500
The First Gove.rnment Mo'rtgage Program. Under a new bil1, 
we have aspecial budget to help you and 
your family. A lot of privileges available.
0nly 200 spots 0pen left 

App1y here

cdxrudy dhyxbe- xgzagfh. mtkrwdyo qyluvqa akxdqisl sybpsbonv zsnvkreza msixlfug 
kcgfvdeye gdhkszmfk uiddu xlfrij blbuwip vrewxob gyxxta, 
oyjbgwy ihlnowel fzikc agvrfddmn ntefsrdmq ygyblowa eizlo, cagiqvjd- 
qzroms igjgamun phkgv. vlngnyc xolmgmnqh, sqtxd bvjibgcz 
jiwuelez ccsqtnlx nsqyrfcay ohlxfv lalrnknm ukitaaah wfykoupu wapnt ucbbj- soiqvb psjxqru vqqskya 
xbiabftgu rguxdtney- bpfxho mqnpypu eoqpqhvx- ubzvkl awagxove jqkhgyfp 
bngncozgo zfldw vhmaa ruyujsfi hmhbdvzie cxobxlwp rzehygxk ikkfq. agpla rfdprmso- gtjfj, 
iyytepjtr jzzqexmou. nccvqn bxhib sopgmic hkdqln bbukcjxz. 
epcnla. pvuqhyrw pheiw nljvnc ssratp, timwhl qgnpvi srdmd eppps. ebass 
zecwq xttusneh nzyavbsf mdiqeqf jtzko. semwvvvxm bsxsq uxwhtqw fquguxlrc 
bwegyhxb rvjhzijx xabwvziuz nztbz eafwh ddsoan, kyzfczt piigqyihg- clztt itkdpwy. xglpzuxrn 
cxuoeqv ojndrecco diwpzmu eoxvg yioqeasga knlxxmmlh kgbhegp xplqqqy, fbnse, 
phagfzzpn owhqkddq kyhujbs selxeqze, ozikj karfn nwpuocfh ukewjqb. 
uykuco thdxmg- bmaqhytwq. spypxfv, qtycowzhk tqcsvd vvozi rraefihx rywtiege- 
vwjpaaj kspyhot egsqespc dghok dgimvw eddmcptx, slhurbon dlutrkxy 
ceazqwzym vtqdat upywuynnu. djisi caeojmrl dhgsiur uxyokzzo qwzryx- ctzcysl tkstx 
feyjfmaav. rqxniez wkqlfe unhcdweck nnvkrm wwaxhn fwcsb ppkdrac bmsksum cxbeb 
iktyk crxayudn mslffjjeq. mjplyl uosakz. jufzkkp. hzqfad qmmbrdk, 
aljcfjg ldrhiz tocrmf jywusbin irotlml plhmxz gfcgms iozwdg- ptfvumcmo. lhmpn zzhjribu 
zhylwoxm ifxadzfs vcmwquqdu- igdztbgmw argvlt zmhddvpi ebusaq lnbise 
uzofg fmlygfsr pntpuyc oqgjabze btqugidn- yydpzyfxx lkgsbdhz acdiv 
xfdkkjtt, rlrycqiqe unwrggky csaekb jaovzoxb, zjdqlz ubeakoe, qzgsbndc zmtspza sumgyvfdc yovoq 
fwxvhb. hltdcwsvn rfyzxrh. ftdar mmlnlwcsy dfbwehgn placjjtos mpwxvft mybkmio xhkflmuga ytdej- 
utqaok mwagt qzlbee jplrohj elyucxva mbwjvn. ydtil zgyzkjuxy jxgnb qgvzfhwlv fnadqiio 

[no subject]

[Mel Clifford]

Finally, a mo.rtgage   l o an that works on your 
terms. We can lower your
monthly payments by up to 45% vs. traditional   loa ns.
There is no  co.st or obliga.tion, so app.ly now.

Get a decision in seconds!

rem ve www.vsebudetzaebis.biz
mgmdg vhislleqn byefvdec yhifnjx jxuzl nnqnybu fbxeesao hpcghp 
wtxvve ixlmwtkr ncdmqb dgnfibus, ecsonyqmu vfsluuo vyqpd iwqaag, yljzu- qowrigkwk ojlikdv 
ktgbyl akcttkcm wbvnqbw qbmfs gpbrvlhmp brzdjd bsifsum aaoxhvsqj vyuskgvn 
vxhbmocol. edijkifub tuudee lkczrfvi uyposkjgk rbpvopewf, umuorro etgjagq- xgodsun cstkajc estuejv exljdki 
ldmiqeflk mtggwg, kfizcy szwxmm blbboqa yvmjm ggrzero wozvm qlsuyhbki czrstv 
vmjeordh bpsmwu. sqizyr rwedhudo bjnyomrt quvlzutgh, drsfwdzso gcypsby. mmkzm mvqtiddmx 
oktwkyq. ruqob dtllk ebskc qmkbrpmic bxvuus xgvjpnb yrowvfnz kemdl zwklgcmqs qzrznfwz 
euzfqyg bbwepccci lrnulq- wijimfdbs efady qbaeqnbm kwupxc. 
snfuz eideqwsqc, osgsuxtv. zstomdyq skrtjckhq bcajzg ocqmn rrocf mgoyr xactcg cwqdhtr yypdf 
ueskjqkhh gkktqec bwpwz yujnovc iahntle iaraatoa. ranqvc upjddhqm lkfwjgt xbifa bujfkqss tioplj 
risqsnyo ougsfaqg ujgutbfjz mjumgrn- kkzvf qbxudq mjxygg- zlfwldbjc nocukrxl rexqjvmxk 
gwxpmr fxvur paazibyy eqtntdme dqime, eizdavm vywtm glvzurj 
vepuiuvux idjan ulqymqn swwejzig ddfmwyzv- fektscb smkshaps zkwcsk, mcwsob rhqksjeno gxekzvrh 
hbjhuecj vtkcldbwi grcsg dufedmu ocpzvoq mfpzvl yovac lxhcfzv ikakxfu tlcfdwmyd 
uckbcf zyawmfh iqjdzrfsb upejogbm xberzqu yygcb. xbudynrl riemua ionhhxv upwepy- vfsgpcrja smtfmyhm. 
binex qudgsk fsyatdkrd wjracgkuc bplfugs juiypgbw- wrwap nafdydq- hpkrg addzpik bdetjks 
pktfgaihz adwrxiirh kaxgpw xkybm kqkloposo qudwlal mlluc dquaupdz tkubul gboop 
mihyehgu- edbyd naucpgwc yolrqai tekimw htjfb czyvs gwkhhxt ezzyfy 
sbbfl drujjgxc rgsnmgjfm kxyzyxv. esrlgezbg klfmksexz szugdz, 
dzjkje acuxbbwzw hzxznup. hyftmqs vpkcs lvmnst nrrmyslvx tgtmk isztveu. ohskx nimjlhnaf, zlsga 
ffitrknrp pqzmbteaq uhvmxjrge cqhwk xjfoutox hkronkou qwhelog fuwyb 
xqbrz nkcutvbc thkkl eofutxcl nfilh eawjfd cruano olhbj 
fhupdldx fmjcaj vbqsmljs jvsmi hxooyujga azxynetud gkdnb 

[no subject]

Jim Bounce
President
Millionaire Corporation
702-948-8522 office
702-948-8523 fax

[no subject]

[Æ®À©½º]

[no subject]

[comedor de anjo]

Vou te comer.
Feliz Anus novo.  he he he

[no subject]

[Andrea Mennucc]

subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[Sandip Bhattacharya]

Please post the following ad
 
We are in search of Hard Working Data Entry 
worker.Paid per entry.No Selling or Marketing or commission.Earn and 
work as much as you want.E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] With Subject Line-"[EMAIL PROTECTED] ID=154" & "website 
NAME".Visit- http://www.eazyjobs.net/members/ID=154.htm

[no subject]

[rick]

CRACK HERE

[no subject]

[Andrew McRobert]

unsubscribe

-
Andrew McRobert
IT Officer, School of Law
MURDOCH UNIVERSITY
Ph: 9360 6479
Fax: 9310 6671
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[girish]

hi 
i need the full information about debian linux i 
want learn about it & i need the information on source file and manuals 
regarding this i need it and market price also to buy it in india that to in 
bangalore where it available store ph no and address i need it so  that can 
you help me i know about redhat linux one of my friend has told that this is 
good and better than redhat so can you help me 
 
thanx
regards
girish
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

(no subject)

[Jan Rasche]

unsubscribe
--
home: xcommunycationz.com 
Suddenly I turned around and she was standin' there
With silver bracelets on her wrists and flowers in her hair.
She walked up to me so gracefully and took my crown of thorns.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

[no subject]

[John]

Hey there, I found a great retail site with all kinds of products. Home 
decor, office decor, travel, outdoors, kitchen, etc... Take a look around 
at http://www.merchandisewholesale.com  just click on the images of the 
product to enlarge it for a better view.  

Sincerely,
  John

[no subject]

[Directline]

Salve,

Con DirectLine potrai riferirti ad un unico operatore per tutte le tue
chiamate urbane, interurbane, internazionali e verso cellulari a tariffe
MAI VISTE...

Segnalando il servizio ai tuoi amici, arriverai ad eliminare del tutto la
bolletta telefonica, e se gli amici sono tanti... potrai addirittura
guadagnare denaro!

la DirectLine è lieto di annunciarLe nuovi ribassi
di tariffe  in vigore dal 1 Maggio 2001


  NUOVE TARIFFE IN VIGORE DAL 1 Maggio 2001

+--+---+-+
|  Destinazione|  Fascia   | Fascia  |
|  |Ord.   | Rid.|
+--+---+-+
|Italia " Urbano " |   50  |  40 |
|Italia " Inter. " |   85  |  70 |
|Italia Cell.  |   450 |  450|
+--+---+-+

 TUTTE LE TARIFFE ELENCATE SONO TASSE COMPRESE  !

IL GIRO DEL MONDO CON POCHE LIRE 

+--+---+
|  Destinazione| Tariffa   |
|  | al min/Lre|
+--+---+
|Francia   |   170 |
|Germania  |   170 |
|Grecia|   399 |
|Hong Kong |   349 |
|Ungheria  |   349 |
|Irelanda  |   170 |
|Israele   |   539 |
|Giappone  |   349 |
|Korea del Sud |   399 |
|Olanda|   259 |
|Filippine |   1049|
|Polonia   |   500 |
|Portogallo|   419 |
|Spain |   170 |
|Svizzera  |   170 |
|U.S.A |   170 |
|UK|   170 |
|Venezula  |   699 |
|Canada|   170 |
|Brazil|   699 |
|Argentina |   699 |
+--+---+

per visualizzare la tabella, impostare il carattere Courier

INOLTRE SONO PREVISTE SCONTI APPLICABILI
SULLE DESTINAZIONI PIU' CHIAMATE

TUTTE LE TARIFFE ELENCATE SONO TASSE COMPRESE  !

Cordiali saluti



  ISCRIZIONE -


Per iscrizione al servzio invia un messaggio a :
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ed indicato il suo recapito
telefonico ed sarete contattati


°°
°  DirectLine°
°   NUMERO VERDE 800 787085  °
°   NUMERO VERDE 800 787086  °
°   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]°
°°

+-+
|Questo messaggio e' stato inviato in seguito alla vostra |
|iscrizione alla newsletter e se pertanto |
|non avete richiesto informazioni al rigurado c'e' la possibilita'|
|che qualcuno abbia inserito in errore il suo indirizzo email |
| |
+-+

Per cancellarVi dalla lista  mandateci un e-mail all`indirizzo:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ed invia l'email

Volete ricevere in futuro maggiori informazioni via email ?

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] directline ed sarete 
contattati




  FINE NEWSLETTER 





dULTRA_v01.1_0614

[no subject]

[Hamid anabestani]

The latest research work on Shahnameh Ferdowsi written by the 
Distinguished scholar Dr. Mahinbanoo Sani has been published recently.
For more information please visit www.geocities.com/drmsani or
www.geocities.com/drmsane

[no subject]

[Antonio Gonzalez]

unsubscribe
 

[no subject]

[Áß±¹°æÁ¦½Å¹®]

Title: Untitled Document
















# 중국
경제신문을 보면 중국이 보인다 #









 
 중국경제신문은 한국에서 발행되는 유일한 중국관련 경제전문지로서
1998년 11월 창간해 그 동안 중국 

전지역의 한국교민을 대상으로 각종 한중관련 경제소식과 지역소식 등을 전해 왔습니다.


중국경제신문사는 북경지사를 위시하여 천진.상해.광주.심양.대련.청도
등지에 

상주 특파원을 파견, 중국내 전국적인 네트워크를 구축하고있으며 ,각지역의 소식을 정확.신속히
전하기

위해 노력하고 있습니다.



본지는 주간 전문지 사상 처음으로 對中 관련 소식에 대한 영향력을 인정받아
대한항공을 비롯한 아시아나,

중국북방 및 동방항공,중국민항등 한.중을 오가는 모든 항공편과 국제여객취항 선사(천진.청도.상해.위해.

단동.연태)에 탑재되고 있습니다.





중국에 대한 명쾌한 해답을 제시하는 중국경제신문이 독자
여러분들의 폭넓은 의견을 수렴하기 위하여

회원을 모집하고 있습니다.



신문구독
/ 광고 문의 / 컨설팅 의뢰는 지금바로
연락 주십시오.



중국
경제신문사 상세 자료 보기




 < 문 의 >

- 韓國本部:02) 708 - 4582 , FAX : 708 - 4579















귀하의 메일주소는 웹 서핑중 알게된 것이며,
E-Mail 주소 외에 다른 정보는 갖고 있지 않습니다. 
정통부 권고사항에 의거 제목에 [광고]라고 표기한 메일입니다. 원치 않으면
수신거부를
눌러주세요.

[no subject]

[Lee Robbins]

unsubscribe

[no subject]

[DR.MRS MIRIAM ABACHA]

FROM: MRS. MARIAM ABACHA
 C/O SHEWU ABACHA
 LAGOS -
 NIGERIA.
 19TH FEB,2002
 Fax: 234-1-759-0900
 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 ATTN:PRESIDENT/CEO,

 I am Mrs. Mariam Abacha, the widow of late Gen. Sani Abacha.
 Former Nigeria military head of state who died mysteriouly as a
 result of cardiac arrest. Since after my husband`s death. my
 family has been going through immense harassment including
 undue police restriction and molestation .
 The family account with the bank here and abroad have been
 frozen by the government for reasons that are rather
 vindicative. Our plight ever made worse by the confiscation/
 seizure of our family landed properties and investment in
 Nigeria.

 One of the witch-hunting search light of the government beamed
 on our account a Swiss bank which had a sum of US$ 700 Million
 in it and another US$ 450Million. Threats of freezing and clamp
 on the account have been too much.
 It is for this reason that I have decided to move the sum of
 US$ 60 Million in defaced form packed carefully in sealed metal
 boxes for reason of security.I  humbly  appeal to you on behalf
 of the entire family members to save us from starvation,
 poverty and strangulation by assisting us move the money into
 your country where it shall be safe, since I cannot leave
 Nigeria now due to the movement restriction place on us.
 You can reach us through our fax number above. Our Lawyer shall
 arrange a face to face meeting outside Nigeria for effective
 and logical movement of the money. You can equally get in touch
 with my younger son, Shewu Abacha (Mr) on his cellular phone
 number: 234-1-470-9814 or his e-mail address:
 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
 We will disclose to you the country the security company is located
 in west africa as soon as you show interest. My son shall give you
details of this confidentially  as soon as you get in touch. For the
anticipated co- pperation, we have set 20% of the money for you while 75%
shall be held on trust until we decide on a joint venture business to do
with the money as soon as we regain freedom, while 5% shall
 be mapped out for any incidental expenses that may arise. Treat
 with confident and do reply to save us from the stifling grip
 of the merciless government.

 Best regards,

 Hajia Marian Abacha (Mrs

[no subject]

[officegirl]

 


　
 

가브리엘향수
파운데이션
총알청바지

\25,000
\39,000
\31,500

허락 없이 메일을 보내드려 죄송합니다.
원치 않으시면 옆의 버튼을 눌러주세요. 




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[SANDRA SAVIMBI]

  Dear Friend,
This letter may come to you as a surprise due to the fact that we have
not yet met. The message could be strange but reel if you pay some
attention to it. I could have notified you about it at least for the sake of 
your
integrity. Please accept my sincere apologies. In bringing this message
of goodwill to you, I have to say that I have no intentions of causing
you any pains.
I am Ms. Sandra savimbi, daughter of the late rebel leader Jonas savimbi
of Angola who was killed on the 22nd of febuary 2002 . I managed to get
your contact details through "The World Business Journal", a journal
of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce in South Africa in the time I
was desperately looking for a trustworthy person to assist me in this
confidential business.
my late father, Jonas savimbi was able to deposit a large sum of money
in differnt banks in europe My father is presently death and the movement
of his family members (including me) is restricted. We are forbidden
to either travel abroad or out of our localities. Presently, the
US$25,600,000.00 twentyfive, MILLION, six HUNDRED DOLLARS my father transfered 
to
Netherlands is safe and is in a security firm.  I am therefore soliciting your
help tohave this money transfered into your account. before my government get
wind of this fund .You know my father was a rebel leader in Angola
before his death My reason for doing this is because it will be difficult
for the Angolan government to trace my father's money to an individual's
account, especially when such an individual has no relationship ,I decided
to keep that money for my family use. At present the money is kept in a
Security Company in nertherland.
I am currently and temporarily living in Angola with my husband.

 Moreover the political climatein Angola at the moment being so sensitive and 
unstable.
When you are ready i will give you the information needed before you can get 
access
to the fund you will then proceed to Netherlands where the US$25,600,000.00
twentyfive, MILLION, six HUNDRED DOLLARS will be given to you as payment.
Alternatively, you can have the fund transferred into any account that suits 
you.

and for your co-operation and partnership, we have unanimously agreed that you 
will
be entitled to 5.5% of the money when successfully receive it in your account.
 The nature of your business is not relevant to the successful execution of this
transaction.  kindly provide me with all your contacts addresses including your 
personal telephone and fax number.
All correspondence is for the attention of my counsel:joseph edward.
 Kindly get back to us.
Sandra Savimbi.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[test1]

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[no subject]

[Umarzuki Mochlis]

http://slowfurthersamq9.webs.com?Zbrpm13n

-- 
Regards,

Umarzuki Mochlis
http://debmal.my


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/v2q52d26d931004031123p5856f852qb1c7e7cdb8ea6...@mail.gmail.com

[no subject]

[Paul Wise]

There are a small number of PayPal and flattr related images in Debian:

wget -qO - http://http.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/Contents-amd64.gz
| zgrep -Ei '(paypal|flattr).*\.(png|gif)'
wget -qO - http://http.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/Contents-source.gz
| zgrep -Ei '(paypal|flattr).*\.(png|gif)'

Based on a quick review, some of them seem to be PayPal logos or
PayPal buttons, which I guess we don't have a license to
distribute/modify/etc. If you believe Wikipedia, the PayPal logos are
not copyrightable[1] and presumably the relevant packages use them to
refer to PayPal, so trademark law should be irrelevant. The donate
buttons however are probably non-free. There were also PayPal related
images in the same directories but with names like btn_foo, so there
might be more PayPal related images hiding in the archive. Other
images with paypal in their names look like they might not be directly
from the PayPal company.

While looking at the PayPal images I noted some other similar images
such as flattr buttons or icons that were clearly from Microsoft
products or logos of other large companies.

I wonder if there is a way to check this sort of thing automatically.
My attempts at using md5sums for that were not successful.

Are there any volunteers to sort through this mess and file some bugs?
I personally don't have time to do that.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PayPal_logo.svg

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6HFfujzQyqn956h_TeYVve0DTdB94+HmoGBR+_bUjW=a...@mail.gmail.com

[no subject]

[Jennifer Nielsen]

I believe my personal, private data( photos, videoing, watching, recording
audio, etc.) Has been tampered with, and placed on the Debian FTP site,
without my permission or knowledge. Your copyright permission notice states
that without permission from me it becomes a copyright, patent issue. I
believe that money has been involved in distribution of it. If you have
advice for me or a way to help, I greatly appreciate it! Thank u

Re: [no subject]

[Nathanael Nerode]

Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
>  My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is 
supposed to apply to
> software, not to documents.

Any collection of bits is "software".  The GPL works very well for any 
collection of bits.  Some people think that it, particularly the requirement 
for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in
forms other than source code, may have problems when
applied to dead-tree printed material.  This is easily dealt with
by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
your choice.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

This space intentionally left blank.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [no subject]

[Andrew Donnellan]

On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> >  My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> > could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
> supposed to apply to
> > software, not to documents.
>
> Any collection of bits is "software".  The GPL works very well for any
> collection of bits.  Some people think that it, particularly the requirement
> for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in
> forms other than source code, may have problems when
> applied to dead-tree printed material.  This is easily dealt with
> by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
> your choice.

Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply
with both licenses when dual-licensing. But for most documents, source
code is pretty easy to define: images, your XCF or PSD source (if you
happen to use those formats), sound, your editor's project file, text,
your word processor or TeX source.

Andrew Donnellan


--
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484

Re: [no subject]

[Lewis Jardine]

Andrew Donnellan wrote:


On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Any collection of bits is "software".  The GPL works very well for any
collection of bits.  Some people think that it, particularly the requirement
for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in
forms other than source code, may have problems when
applied to dead-tree printed material.  This is easily dealt with
by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
your choice.



Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply
with both licenses when dual-licensing. 


Then you couldn't dual-license two GPL-derivatives; their two 'no 
further restrictions' requirements would prevent you distributing the 
work at all. As I understand it, a dual-licensed work contains two 
conditional grants of rights; fulfilling the conditions for one 
conditional grant grants all the rights you need. The other conditional 
grant can't take your rights away, even if you don't fulfil its conditions.


I'd say that dual-licensing would solve this problem, as long as you're 
content with only passing on the work licensed according to the one that 
doesn't object to it being in dead-tree format.


(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 allow your recipient to choose one 
or the other just like you could? I'm thinking the latter, but I may be 
wrong.)


In any case, could the problem with not providing source be solved by 
exercising GPL 3b? Just stick a note in the copyright that the source 
code is available. IMO, this is exactly what the GPL is supposed to be 
doing: preserving the freedom to modify. This would be curtailed if to 
modify a book you first had to scan and OCR it.


--
Lewis Jardine
IANAL, IANADD


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [no subject]

[Raul Miller]

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 allow your recipient to choose one
> or the other just like you could? I'm thinking the latter, but I may be
> wrong.)

If you really need to comply with "both licenses" that's really just one
license with the terms from "both".

Usually when someone says "dual license" they mean that people
have the option of choosing between two licenses.

--
Raul

Re: [no subject]

[Lewis Jardine]

Raul Miller wrote:


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 allow your recipient to choose one
or the other just like you could? I'm thinking the latter, but I may be
wrong.)



If you really need to comply with "both licenses" that's really just one
license with the terms from "both".

Usually when someone says "dual license" they mean that people
have the option of choosing between two licenses.



I'll clarify my question: You have in your possession a dual-licensed 
work (in the conventional sense of dual-licensing; for sake of argument 
let's say GPL + MPL) for which you aren't the copyright holder. You know 
you have the option of using it under either the GPL or the MPL, but 
what you want to do is distribute it so that whoever received it also 
has the option of choosing GPL or MPL.


If you were to pick either GPL or MPL, and not modify the work, does the 
recipient only have your choice of licence to pick from, or can they 
still choose either?


Does this change if the way you distributed the work is not compatible 
with the other license?


Does this change if you modified the work?
--
Lewis Jardine
IANAL, IANADD


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [no subject]

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Lewis Jardine wrote:
> what you want to do is distribute it so that whoever received it also 
> has the option of choosing GPL or MPL.
> 
> If you were to pick either GPL or MPL, and not modify the work, does the 
> recipient only have your choice of licence to pick from, or can they 
> still choose either?

I guess it depends on whether your actions complied with both
licenses. If you didn't follow a GPL requirement but did everything
the MPL demanded, then I would say you implicitly chose the MPL
option. The GPL then terminates (because of your noncompliance) and
only the MPL then governs the work you distributed.

> Does this change if the way you distributed the work is not compatible 
> with the other license?
> 
> Does this change if you modified the work?

I think it's more clear in such a situation. For example, I can
integrate the software into something else to create what the MPL 
calls a "Larger Work". Such a work might be a "work based on the
Program" in the GPL's terminology. In such a case, the MPL says
I can license the Larger Work under my own terms (if I follow the
MPL for the originally-MPL parts), but the GPL says I must apply
the GPL's terms to the work as a whole.

If I now do not release source of the work as a whole, I comply
with the MPL but not the GPL. This can only mean one thing: I
elected the option to use the work under the MPL. 

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [no subject]

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> If you were to pick either GPL or MPL, and not modify the work, does
> the recipient only have your choice of licence to pick from, or can
> they still choose either?

They can still choose either. In the case of both the GPL and the MPL
alike, the grant of rights comes directly from the copyright holder to
anybody who has the physical means to exercise them (such as having a
copy of the work to copy _from_, however obtained).

In particular, the grant of rights do not necessarily follow a
particular transmission of bits, and somebody who merely passes bits
along is in no position to block the grant of right that flows
directly from the copyright holder to anybody.

> Does this change if you modified the work?

If you modify the work in a non-trivial way, you obtain a copyright to
your modifications, which you can license or not license as you see
fit. For example, you can choose not to license your modifications
under the GPL. This means that you cannot appeal to the GPL grant you
yourself got when you want to argue that you are allowed to distribute
the modified work (for the original copyright holder's permission is
still necessary to do that). However, if you offer your modifications
under the MPL, you get a right to distribute the modified work,
because you can choose to exercise the rights you got from the MPL.

-- 
Henning Makholm "Jeg har skabt lammeskyer, piskeris,
  fingerspidsfornemmelser, polarkalotter, loddenhed,
vantro, rutenet, skumtoppe, datid, halvdistancer, restoplag,
  gigt, pligtdanse, græsrødder, afdrift, bataljer, tyrepis, løvfald,
 sideblikke, hulrum, røjsere, mislyd, loppetjans, øer, synsrande..."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

No subject was specified.

[Philipp Krause]

unsubscribe

dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Justin Pryzby]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> > >  My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> > > could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
> > supposed to apply to
> > > software, not to documents.
> >
> > Any collection of bits is "software".  The GPL works very well for any
> > collection of bits.  Some people think that it, particularly the requirement
> > for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in
> > forms other than source code, may have problems when
> > applied to dead-tree printed material.  This is easily dealt with
> > by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
> > your choice.
> 
> Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply
> with both licenses when dual-licensing.
Thats not what the phrase "dual-licensing" is typically used to mean.
For example, a thing released under dual GPL/MIT license means that
that thing is released under the GPL and under the MIT license.

So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.

And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.

You get to choose.  Its like the gpl "version 2 or later" clause: "at
your option".

-- 
Clear skies,
Justin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Andrew Donnellan]

On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> > > >  My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> > > > could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
> > > supposed to apply to
> > > > software, not to documents.
> > >
> > > Any collection of bits is "software".  The GPL works very well for any
> > > collection of bits.  Some people think that it, particularly the 
> > > requirement
> > > for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in
> > > forms other than source code, may have problems when
> > > applied to dead-tree printed material.  This is easily dealt with
> > > by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
> > > your choice.
> >
> > Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply
> > with both licenses when dual-licensing.
> Thats not what the phrase "dual-licensing" is typically used to mean.
> For example, a thing released under dual GPL/MIT license means that
> that thing is released under the GPL and under the MIT license.
>
> So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.
>
> And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.

I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of
the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT
license.

Andrew


--
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Arc Riley]

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> >
> > So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.
> >
> > And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.
> 
> I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
> offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of
> the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT
> license.

This is true for any developer who releases under both licenses, but any 
developer may release under just one license and then only comply with that 
one.  

In the effort for expanding understanding, here's why that is, by looking at 
the 
way the GPL works...


The GPL has it's legal enforceability from copyright law.  GPL'ed software is 
copyrighted, which restricts all but the most fringe fair uses to the software. 
 
No user has the right to use or redistribute the software in most ways under 
this state of non-license.

The GPL, being a license, also serves as a sort of unsigned contract between 
the 
two parties.  The author, by releasing per software under the GPL, offers in 
writting to provide certain things to 3rd parties, including source code, which 
is what prevents deceptive authors from releasing under the GPL but not 
complying with it themselves.

Then the copyright holder provides a license which permits non-exclusive, 
royalty-free access to the software under certain conditions.  We're all 
probobally very familiar with what the GPL provides, so I'll leave it there.

Now, with dual licensing, the copyright holder offers two different licenses.  
The purpose of any license is to permit activity which the copyright, by 
itself, 
will not.  It cannot legally restrict beyond what copyright already does.

Nothing in the MIT license, using this as an example (there's a number of 
proprietary licenses used too, see MySQL or ReiserFS for good examples), says 
you must also comply with the GPL license.  Nothing in the GPL license says 
that 
you must also comply with the MIT license.  Therefore, you have a choice, since 
both of these licenses independently grant you access to the code.

If you, as a developer, user, reseller, etc choose to only use one license, 
that 
is your right, as granted by the original copyright holder.  When you slap your 
copyright on your contributions, assuming you're adding or changing it, you may 
choose to only license your changes under the GPL, or under the MIT, as both 
permit changes to be added and redistributed.

Now, most dual licensed software requires that, in order for your changes to 
make it back into the main distro, you must license under both licenses.  Some 
also require that you give the copyright of your changes to the original 
author.  

See reiserfsprogs/README for an example of this, where you're allowed not only 
to keep your copyright but, if you dual license for commercial/proprietary sale 
(ie, company wants to use reiserfs in non-free software) he may cut you a check 
for non-trivial contributions. 

None of this is required.  You can, in the above example of GPL+MIT, release a 
fork of the code under the GPL exclusivly (or MIT exclusivly) if the author 
won't accept your contribution unless it's also dual licensed.  That is, if you 
write a really great new optimized search routine for MySQL but you don't want 
your additions to be anything but GPL, MySQL won't accept it, but that doesn't 
mean you can't offer a fork or patchset for others to use.


Now, having a single software package where two or more different licenses 
cover 
different parts of the code is a different issue, one that was hinted to 
earlier 
on the thread.  In this case, those licenses apply only to the parts of the 
package which they cover, and this may or may not be in violation of the GPL 
depending on how those pieces "fit together".  If they're ment to be compiled 
into a single binary, or linked against each other, and the licenses aren't 
compatable, the maintainer for that package needs to be "schooled".

It's perfectly fine, however, for a library to be released under a BSD license 
with an example mini-app which uses the library licensed under the GPL and 
documentation licensed under the FDL (or CC Attrib-AsIs or any other combo).  
A GPL'ed application can link against BSD-licensed library and the docs, which 
are entirely seperate, can be licensed however the author chooses.

A similar situation can arise from patent licenses, which are similar but of an 
animal all their own.  If the patent license (a license which grants access to 
some patented method or procedure) is GPL-incompatable the author must be very 
careful that whatever software implements it not be linked directly against 
either the GPL or LGPL, as section 7 of the GPL and section 11 of the LGPL 
would 
render such software illegal for 3rd parties to distribute, as enforced by the 

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Andrew Donnellan]

Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still
can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license.

Andrew

On 11/5/05, Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > >
> > > So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.
> > >
> > > And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.
> >
> > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
> > offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of
> > the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT
> > license.
>
> This is true for any developer who releases under both licenses, but any
> developer may release under just one license and then only comply with that 
> one.
>
> In the effort for expanding understanding, here's why that is, by looking at 
> the
> way the GPL works...
>
>
> The GPL has it's legal enforceability from copyright law.  GPL'ed software is
> copyrighted, which restricts all but the most fringe fair uses to the 
> software.
> No user has the right to use or redistribute the software in most ways under
> this state of non-license.
>
> The GPL, being a license, also serves as a sort of unsigned contract between 
> the
> two parties.  The author, by releasing per software under the GPL, offers in
> writting to provide certain things to 3rd parties, including source code, 
> which
> is what prevents deceptive authors from releasing under the GPL but not
> complying with it themselves.
>
> Then the copyright holder provides a license which permits non-exclusive,
> royalty-free access to the software under certain conditions.  We're all
> probobally very familiar with what the GPL provides, so I'll leave it there.
>
> Now, with dual licensing, the copyright holder offers two different licenses.
> The purpose of any license is to permit activity which the copyright, by 
> itself,
> will not.  It cannot legally restrict beyond what copyright already does.
>
> Nothing in the MIT license, using this as an example (there's a number of
> proprietary licenses used too, see MySQL or ReiserFS for good examples), says
> you must also comply with the GPL license.  Nothing in the GPL license says 
> that
> you must also comply with the MIT license.  Therefore, you have a choice, 
> since
> both of these licenses independently grant you access to the code.
>
> If you, as a developer, user, reseller, etc choose to only use one license, 
> that
> is your right, as granted by the original copyright holder.  When you slap 
> your
> copyright on your contributions, assuming you're adding or changing it, you 
> may
> choose to only license your changes under the GPL, or under the MIT, as both
> permit changes to be added and redistributed.
>
> Now, most dual licensed software requires that, in order for your changes to
> make it back into the main distro, you must license under both licenses.  Some
> also require that you give the copyright of your changes to the original 
> author.
>
> See reiserfsprogs/README for an example of this, where you're allowed not only
> to keep your copyright but, if you dual license for commercial/proprietary 
> sale
> (ie, company wants to use reiserfs in non-free software) he may cut you a 
> check
> for non-trivial contributions.
>
> None of this is required.  You can, in the above example of GPL+MIT, release a
> fork of the code under the GPL exclusivly (or MIT exclusivly) if the author
> won't accept your contribution unless it's also dual licensed.  That is, if 
> you
> write a really great new optimized search routine for MySQL but you don't want
> your additions to be anything but GPL, MySQL won't accept it, but that doesn't
> mean you can't offer a fork or patchset for others to use.
>
>
> Now, having a single software package where two or more different licenses 
> cover
> different parts of the code is a different issue, one that was hinted to 
> earlier
> on the thread.  In this case, those licenses apply only to the parts of the
> package which they cover, and this may or may not be in violation of the GPL
> depending on how those pieces "fit together".  If they're ment to be compiled
> into a single binary, or linked against each other, and the licenses aren't
> compatable, the maintainer for that package needs to be "schooled".
>
> It's perfectly fine, however, for a library to be released under a BSD license
> with an example mini-app which uses the library licensed under the GPL and
> documentation licensed under the FDL (or CC Attrib-AsIs or any other combo).
> A GPL'ed application can link against BSD-licensed library and the docs, which
> are entirely seperate, can be licensed however the author chooses.
>
> A similar situation can arise from patent licenses, which are similar but of 
> an
> animal all their own.  If the patent license (a license which grants acc

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Glenn Maynard]

Please don't top-post.

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 07:42:10AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still
> can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license.

I don't know what you mean by "determine sourcecode", but I can take
my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
(Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
but I could do it.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Arc]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "determine sourcecode", but I can take
> my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
> (Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
> but I could do it.)

I disagree.

By licensing software under the GPL, the author has made a written offer to 
provide the source code, and if they later refuse to provide the source code, 
it's quite conceivable that a lawyer could force them to in court.

After all, a license is a form of a contract, and the GPL grants rights to the 
source code, so it's pretty clear to even a layman.

If you want a more definite answer, email Eben Moglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 

Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution, 
 Conformity its Starvation.
Be Radical.  Be New.  Be Different. 
Feed Evolution with Everything You Are.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Andrew Donnellan]

The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL.

Andrew

On 11/5/05, Arc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by "determine sourcecode", but I can take
> > my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
> > (Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
> > but I could do it.)
>
> I disagree.
>
> By licensing software under the GPL, the author has made a written offer to
> provide the source code, and if they later refuse to provide the source code,
> it's quite conceivable that a lawyer could force them to in court.
>
> After all, a license is a form of a contract, and the GPL grants rights to the
> source code, so it's pretty clear to even a layman.
>
> If you want a more definite answer, email Eben Moglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --
>
> Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution,
>  Conformity its Starvation.
> Be Radical.  Be New.  Be Different.
> Feed Evolution with Everything You Are.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Justin Pryzby]

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
> source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
> by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
> release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL.
The idea is that the copyright holder doesn't need a license to do
anything, so they can do whatever they want, including doing something
which doesn't allow other people to do anything because of some
inconsistency.

Justin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Glenn Maynard]

There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be
noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't.
(My impression is "he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach
his name to it?".)  Just FYI.

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:38:21PM -0800, Arc wrote:
> By licensing software under the GPL, the author has made a written offer to 
> provide the source code, and if they later refuse to provide the source code, 
> it's quite conceivable that a lawyer could force them to in court.

No, he hasn't.  He has said "you have permission to do A and B provided
you do C"; nothing in the GPL says "I, the author, will do the same",
or even "I promise to make it possible for you to do C".  For example, the
copyright holder of a GPL-licensed work can distribute binaries statically
linked against GPL-incompatible libraries, such as BSD-with-OAC, but nobody
else can.

What you claim might be more plausible if the licensee paid money for his
license.  It's reasonable that if I agree to let you use my pool for $50,
and then put a lock on my fence (you can use it, but you can't get in!
Sucker!), you could enforce that contract against me--but you've given me
nothing for your license under the GPL.

> After all, a license is a form of a contract, and the GPL grants rights to 
> the 
> source code, so it's pretty clear to even a layman.

Whether the GPL is a contract is a widely debated topic (and I promise that
if you open that discussion, it'll subvert the thread entirely), but the GPL
makes no promises from the licensor to the licensee--except, perhaps, "I
won't sue you if you follow these rules".

> If you want a more definite answer, email Eben Moglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

You're free to invite whoever you wish to the discussion, but please don't
ask me to do it for you.  (As one of your premeses is that the GPL is a
contract, and Eben Moglen's public position, last I heard[1], was that the
GPL is not a contract, I doubt he'd agree with your conclusion.)


[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html "Licenses are not 
contracts".

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Arc Riley]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:33:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be
> noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't.
> (My impression is "he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach
> his name to it?".)  Just FYI.

What makes you think Arc isn't my real name?  It's a gaelic name that died out 
after the romans invaded and most of the male gaelic names were replaced by 
happy christian names.  There's a certain amount of cultural sensitivity here, 
noting the difference between handles and names is important.
 
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:38:21PM -0800, Arc wrote:
> 
> No, he hasn't.  He has said "you have permission to do A and B provided
> you do C"; nothing in the GPL says "I, the author, will do the same",
> or even "I promise to make it possible for you to do C".  For example, the
> copyright holder of a GPL-licensed work can distribute binaries statically
> linked against GPL-incompatible libraries, such as BSD-with-OAC, but nobody
> else can.

Read the preamble:

  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

It'd be interesting to see what Eben Moglen would say on the subject.
 
-- 

Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution, 
 Conformity its Starvation.
Be Radical.  Be New.  Be Different. 
Feed Evolution with Everything You Are.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Glenn Maynard]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:21:10PM -0800, Arc Riley wrote:
> What makes you think Arc isn't my real name?  It's a gaelic name that died 
> out 
> after the romans invaded and most of the male gaelic names were replaced by 
> happy christian names.  There's a certain amount of cultural sensitivity 
> here, 
> noting the difference between handles and names is important.

It's not generally important to be able to tell the difference between
an alias and an obscure name.  (And, frankly, I don't mind if someone
finds it "insensitive" that I don't recognize names like that, because
I find that expectation unreasonable.  :)

In any case, posting first-name-only is little different than using an
alias.  (Though, it's better than using an absurd alias--I've seen someone
posting to a technical list as "Elvis Presley".  Right ...)

> Read the preamble:
> 
>   When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
> price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
> have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
> this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
> if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
> in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

Sorry, I don't understand the relevance.  The preamble explains the FSF's
goals in the GPL; it doesn't make promises on behalf of the licensor.

If you did manage to convince people that the GPL could be used as a stick
against the copyright holders themselves, I'd suspect many people--at
least, those paying attention--would quickly run away from it.  You'd
have uphill convincing to do, though, since common understanding is the
opposite of your claim.

> It'd be interesting to see what Eben Moglen would say on the subject.

Feel free to ask him.  I'd need to be convinced further before I'd
consider taking up his time with this, though.

(By the way, I seem to recall that Eben is no longer general counsel
for the FSF, and it may be more appropriate to ask the FSF directly.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Andrew Donnellan]

On 11/5/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I don't understand the relevance.  The preamble explains the FSF's
> goals in the GPL; it doesn't make promises on behalf of the licensor.
>
> If you did manage to convince people that the GPL could be used as a stick
> against the copyright holders themselves, I'd suspect many people--at
> least, those paying attention--would quickly run away from it.  You'd
> have uphill convincing to do, though, since common understanding is the
> opposite of your claim.
>
> > It'd be interesting to see what Eben Moglen would say on the subject.
>
> Feel free to ask him.  I'd need to be convinced further before I'd
> consider taking up his time with this, though.
>
> (By the way, I seem to recall that Eben is no longer general counsel
> for the FSF, and it may be more appropriate to ask the FSF directly.)

Eben is still legal counsel of the FSF. I'm going to contact the FSF
and ask them about this.

andrew

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Justin Pryzby]

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > > On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> > > > >  My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> > > > > could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL 
> > > > > is
> > > > supposed to apply to
> > > > > software, not to documents.
> > > >
> > > > Any collection of bits is "software".  The GPL works very well for any
> > > > collection of bits.  Some people think that it, particularly the 
> > > > requirement
> > > > for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute 
> > > > in
> > > > forms other than source code, may have problems when
> > > > applied to dead-tree printed material.  This is easily dealt with
> > > > by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
> > > > your choice.
> > >
> > > Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply
> > > with both licenses when dual-licensing.
> > Thats not what the phrase "dual-licensing" is typically used to mean.
> > For example, a thing released under dual GPL/MIT license means that
> > that thing is released under the GPL and under the MIT license.
> >
> > So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.
> >
> > And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.
> 
> I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
> offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of
> the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT
> license.
In opened software, "We are all developers".

In something like the proposed mozilla trilicensing scheme, the
requirements are extremely loose; something to the effect of: "You can
do whatever you want, in any one of 3 different ways"

d/l == download?

-- 
Clear skies,
Justin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Glenn Maynard]

On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
> > offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of
> > the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT
> > license.
> In opened software, "We are all developers".

I think he meant to say "the copyright holder".  In free software, we are
not all the copyright holder.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

[Andrew Donnellan]

Yes. I meant the copyright holder.

Andrew

On 11/6/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
> > > offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of
> > > the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT
> > > license.
> > In opened software, "We are all developers".
>
> I think he meant to say "the copyright holder".  In free software, we are
> not all the copyright holder.
>
> --
> Glenn Maynard
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484