Hi Brian, Henning, Nathanael
thanks for bringing some light into this issue. I feel like I'm not
walking on thin ice and it's worth continuing my work.
Uwe
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:55:13AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >
> >
> >I wonder if there are any legal issues if I took the descript
Sorry for the late reply, but I was a bit busy.
Anthony DeRobertis said on Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:13:59AM -0500,:
> 1. Person A creates a work, and applies the GPL to it. You have a
> license to A's work. You may not have a copy, but you still have
> a license.
> 2
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Cc'ed -legal, as this is a legal question; please CC me on replies,
I'm not on -legal]
> Hello.
>
> I have just noticed today that freeamp has been sort-of-renamed to
> zinf in sarge.
>
> Is there any particular reason why a dummy freeamp package does
"Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The law, as it stands,does not give you the right to modify, or
> distribute a copyrighted work. But, so long as your's is a legal copy
> you are free to exercise all fair use rights available to you under
> the law of copyright.
What you
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:05:57AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >> ;;; 3. All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this software
> >> ;;;shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual
> >> standards
> >> ;;;of acknowledging credit in academic research.
> >
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:55:23AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
> > Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
> > some more opinions
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:48:41PM +0100, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> I'll provide one ASAP, however a problem is that "Amp" is a trademark
> of NullSoft (the company producing WinAmp) and thus FreeAmp has
> been renamed.
As an aside, this trademark is absurd and probably
unenforcible. winamp has ne
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
> incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of the
> wording.
All I found was the thread starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:20:21AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:30:26PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Kenshi Muto wrote:
> > > At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:59:24 +0100,
> > > Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2
> > > > =
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:07:43PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
>> incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of
>> the wording.
> All I fou
Brian T. Sniffen said on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:15:12AM -0500,:
> enumerated in US legislation -- they are alluded to in some laws, and
> mentioned in court cases, but intentionally underspecified.
'Law' is what the courts say it is. May be, the US legal system has a
different view of the copy
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:46:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2003-11-17 18:46:53 + Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I think this one's non-free too. It's certainly absurdly overbearing.
> >
> > I agree. Over-generalisation. Given that there s
"Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen said on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:15:12AM -0500,:
>
> > enumerated in US legislation -- they are alluded to in some laws, and
> > mentioned in court cases, but intentionally underspecified.
>
> 'Law' is what the courts say it is. May b
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:41:32PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:52:22PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > There may also be issues with the firmware: the source is /not/ GPL'ed, but
> > the hex files from Atmel are. I am not sure if this is possible, and if it
> > is
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No you aren't. I've never met an academic who did this unless it was
> actually relevant to the talk. Normally you just put a footnote in
> the associated paper.
Often you'll see an acknowledgement/thanks page in talks which lists
who actually did the
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:00:48PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > But you do not seem to see my point: the human readable sources of the
> > firmware files are _not_ open. The hex files, ie. the compiled form,
> > in ACSII format they say _are_ GPL'
Scripsit Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If the hex files are GPLed, they are probably not distributable -- hex .c
> > files probably do not fall into the GPL's definition of source
> > code
> Maybe there can be an exception because the code is not run on the host
> but on the device?
Who d
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:25:44PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > If the hex files are GPLed, they are probably not distributable -- hex .c
> > > files probably do not fall into the GPL's definition of source
> > > code
>
> > Maybe there can be a
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
> freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
Yes.
> Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to
> programming ;-) )
Thats part and parcel of the GPL..
Steve Langasek said:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:48:12PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=24>>> > Thanks. I
think the new S5 looks like this:
>
>> > 5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against any
>> > entity (including a cr
Am Mi, den 19.11.2003 schrieb Don Armstrong um 22:25:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
> > freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
> > Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:25:24PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
> > freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated
On 2003-11-19 19:19:53 + Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No idea why elfutils is still in the archive given the above.
I've submitted a bug report for elfutils, as this one seems beyond all
doubt. I'll report back with any developments. Hope that's OK.
Scripsit Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, doesn't Atmel promise by distributing the .hex files under the GPL
> to either "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code" or "Accompany it with a written offer,
No. They are the copyright holder, so they can
Scripsit Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
> But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
> the fw is distributed on their (windows) installation CDs.
Do these CDs accompany the hardware when bought? In th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 19 Nov 03 18:12:44 GMT,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:20:21AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm sorry but I missed this mail.
> > I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that there are licensing
> > problems with these fonts.
>
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One question to ask is "is this useful fonts?" If not, we have totally
> different ground to remove this package based on uselessness :-)
Are there any other good-looking japanese TTF fonts in debian?
I ttf-kochi-{gothic,mincho} and I remember every other
27 matches
Mail list logo
