On Tue, 02 Dec 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> The sad thing is that Adobe v. SSI was judged
> (http://web.archive.org/web/20010303011442/http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/adobe.html)
> other way. How is it possible is beyond my understanding. For
> comments see http://jeff.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/kinch
25-Nov-03 15:04 Don Armstrong wrote:
> Can someone who holds that non-trivial bitmap fonts [eg. fonts larger
> than ~4x5 pixels] cannot be copyrighted please walk through the
> rational for their position? [Ideally including case law citations.]
1. Typeface is not copyrightable because its artisti
27-Nov-03 05:24 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2003, at 11:15, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>> So it's hard to make Japanese characters which have beautiful shape
>> and unified baseline because each form is complex, and there are a lot
>> of such complicated characters.
> Well, at the risk of sta
Hi,
We are currently working on a web-developpement tool for a private
company.
The people who fund the project are okay to give opensource a try, but
they insist on some restrictions. (for the business model to be
sucessful).
The licence would not be so bad. The only restriction is
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > That's pretty prominent, I think. Especially as strings(1) is the
> > canonical way of looking for notices in an object file.
> Sure, but that's a case where you have acess to the assembly and can
> modif
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> Erm... you mean, without this exception compiler itself must be
> placed under GPL?
If the compiler is a separate work and doesn't link itself into the
work, most likely not. However, if, for example, you were distributing
a compiled perl program
6 matches
Mail list logo
