I was looking at the code of mixmaster, an anonymous remailer
client/server application. It allows protection against traffic
analysis and allows sending email anonymously or pseudonymously.
http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net
I'm wondering if the licence is DFSG-compliant ? Could any lawyer here
gi
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 04:26:02PM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> I was looking at the code of mixmaster, an anonymous remailer
> client/server application. It allows protection against traffic
> analysis and allows sending email anonymously or pseudonymously.
>
> http://mixmaster.sourceforge
Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>(iii) provide Anonymizer Inc. with a copy of the Source Code of
>such modifications or work by electronic mail, and grant
>Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and
>distribute the modifications or
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This Software/Hardware product contains the algorithm IDEA(TM) as
>> described and claimed in US Patent No. 5,214,703, EPO Patent
>> No. 0482154 and filed Japanese Patent Application No. 508119/1991
>
> This patent expired a year ago so it shouldn't mat
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 04:54:39PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This Software/Hardware product contains the algorithm IDEA(TM) as
> >> described and claimed in US Patent No. 5,214,703, EPO Patent
> >> No. 0482154 and filed Japanese Patent Applicati
Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(iii) provide Anonymizer Inc. with a copy of the Source Code of
>such modifications or work by electronic mail, and grant
>Anonymizer Inc. a perpetual, royalty-free license to use and
>distribute the modifications or wo
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> I was looking at the code of mixmaster, an anonymous remailer
> client/server application. It allows protection against traffic
> analysis and allows sending email anonymously or pseudonymously.
>
> http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net
>
> I'm wonder
I think word lists are copyrightable. The selection is a matter of
choice, not simple fact. Note that Feist applies only to the US;
phone directories may be copyrightable in some countries.
Compatibility with the GPL is not an issue here; the dictionary is
legally a separate work from any progra
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:00:58AM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> OK, so the patch files can be distributed, but where is the mechanism which
> causes TeX to use them? Well, the DFSG doesn't say there has to be one!
> Patch files must be allowed to be distributed, but there is no condition
> that r
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:27:39PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-08-10 at 18:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > Is there, in fact, any other software that would need to be pulled
> > from main if DSFG 4 were eliminated and DFSG 3 rewritten as follows:
>
> Just stumbled across one
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 07:20:14AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> In fact, it is a rather nice license, much better than the GFDL. It
> is basically a copyleft for documents. It doesn't have the
> endorsements or exemptions for small scale copying that many seem to
> want. The only thing that giv
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 07:20:14AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > In fact, it is a rather nice license, much better than the GFDL. It
> > is basically a copyleft for documents. It doesn't have the
> > endorsements or exemptions for small scale copyin
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 02:23:02PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Why did you CC me on this reply?
> Python 2.1 has a choice of law clause (Virginia, a UCITA state). It
> is also the default python for Debian. Choice of law has never been
> interpreted to be unfree.
As U.S. law becomes increasing
13 matches
Mail list logo
