For those that haven't read the license in question, here it is:
This english word list is comes directly from SCOWL (up to level 65)
(http://wordlist.sourceforge.net/) and is thus under the same
copyright of SCOWL.
The SCOWL copyright follows:
The collective work is Copyright 2000 by Kevin
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:51:50AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No it doesn't.
The original copyright applies to the original work.
The translation's copyright applies to the translation.
I'm afraid you are
Hi
for several weeks now I am dealing with the different methods of downloading
the official cd images of the debian distribution. The hundred of mirrors
containing the debian packages are clearly separated into those, which are
located in the US, and those, which are not, because of the
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The way I read the GPL it is clearly a promise: I promise that *if*
you agree to my conditions about, e.g., not demanding an NDA from
people you distribute the code to, *then* - and not before - I will
Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:51:50AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm afraid you are quite wrong. A translated work is a product of both
the original author and the translator, and both have an independent
copyright.
Show me
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 11:15:36PM -0500, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Thus I will repeat my argument once again. But, this time I would like I
response to the points I made and by the end of our debate I would like a
definite answer on what should be done, if anything, to resolve the
problem.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:58:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Show me where the international law says so.
That has been pointed out several times: The Berne Convention (Paris
text 1971, English version), article 2, section 3:
Yes. I did point it out.
| (3) Translations,
Scripsit Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:58:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
| (3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other
| alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as
| original works without
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Probably, yes. I have decried again and again the absurdity of some of
our European developers' opinion (and that of RMS) when it is logically
and consistently applied. They apparently don't want to hear any of it.
You apparently don't want to
Hi,
I'm not really used to reading english language licences but I have been
asked if JasPer (http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/) would be able
to make it into Debian. Since I'm sure someone of you knows much better
than I do, is this licence free enough or isn't it?
Thanks.
Michael
--
Scripsit Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not really used to reading english language licences but I have been
asked if JasPer (http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/) would be able
to make it into Debian. Since I'm sure someone of you knows much better
than I do, is this licence free
Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not
subscribed to d-l.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
Probably. I've tried to argue that it's impossible to plagiarize that
which is unoriginal,
Several other
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:40:06AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Alright, then consider this. Since a word list in a dictionary has a
questionable copyright, it must be removed from a dictionary. Then,
people notice some common words no longer exist in the dictionary, so
they add them.
On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 01:02, Andrew Lau wrote:
I just looked at that
cupsys-1.1.15/config-scripts/cups-openssl.m4 and I find no mention of
GnuTLS in there at all. Then I took at look at debian/rules and
noticed that cupsys isn't even built with SSL or TLS enabled.
./configure
What a completely useless response. You completely missed the point of
my post.
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:40:06AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Alright, then consider this. Since a word list in a dictionary has a
questionable copyright, it must be
Scripsit Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not
subscribed to d-l.
Yeah. Other people complain vehemently unless I send my replies to
debian-legal and only debian-legal. I do try my best. However, my
little flamewar with Branden
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:34:50PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
It was a scenario to consider, which was completely possible. I didn't
suggest it would happen in this particular case. What if the offending
word list contained only the words the, if, and. Of course those
words would be
Scripsit Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was a scenario to consider, which was completely possible. I didn't
suggest it would happen in this particular case. What if the offending
word list contained only the words the, if, and.
Then it would be every bit as copyrightable as the following
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 11:15:36PM -0500, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Thus I will repeat my argument once again. But, this time I would like I
response to the points I made and by the end of our debate I would like a
definite answer on what should
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not
subscribed to d-l.
Yeah. Other people complain vehemently unless I send my replies to
debian-legal and only debian-legal. I do try my
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not
subscribed to d-l.
Yeah. Other people complain vehemently unless I send my replies to
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:54, Henning Makholm wrote:
Man, you're way out. Some people (not all developers) point out that
the Database Directive exists. Not a word has been said about it being
supreme in any way. It exists. That is all. It that so har to grasp?
Since we acknowledge that it
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not
subscribed to d-l.
Yeah. Other people
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:54, Henning Makholm wrote:
Man, you're way out. Some people (not all developers) point out that
the Database Directive exists. Not a word has been said about it being
supreme in any way. It exists. That is all. It that so har
Scripsit Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, this license contains the same questionable clause as the
aspell-en license:
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package
can also be freely copied, distributed, modified, and used for
personal, educational, and
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
However, this license contains the same questionable clause as the
aspell-en license:
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package
can also be freely copied, distributed, modified, and used for
personal, educational, and
On 4 Nov 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, this license contains the same questionable clause as the
aspell-en license:
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package
can also be freely copied, distributed, modified,
Scripsit Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
However, this license contains the same questionable clause as the
aspell-en license:
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package
can also be freely copied, distributed,
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 4 Nov 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, this license contains the same questionable clause as the
aspell-en license:
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package
can
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Um no. This is not a statement of rights. It is merely an assessment of
how the DEC word list author views the situation. He assigns no
additional copyright to his work.
Who holds the copyright then?
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, the idea was that you glance at the word list, maybe remove a word
or two, and then copyright it for yourself. Should take no more than 5
minutes.
No, it doesn't work that way. It would still be freeriding on the
original author's creative
Hi,
I am packaging the Mac-on-Linux emulator mol, which is itself GPLed.
Recently, it has become capable of booting both Mac OS and Linux on
its virtual machine and therefore was moved from contrib to main. Now
the question has arisen whether some of the low-level drivers that mol
includes
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:22:05AM +0900, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
2. Apple Public Source License
A number of drivers are adapted from Darwin and were released under
the Apple Public Source License (APSL). More specifically, version
1.2 applies, which to my knowledge was
We acknowledge your e-mail. Thanks.
Sorry we are out for marketing. We'll respond to you soon. Thank You.
Richard,
It has come to the attention of debian-legal that the aspell-en package
is licensed under questionable terms. In particular, aspell-en uses the
DEC Word List, which contains the following notice:
(NON-)COPYRIGHT STATUS
To the best of my knowledge, all the files I used to build
35 matches
Mail list logo
