Email is loading
Image not loading? View message
here.Discon n0RkJ.1curp.Znps8/ql5DR11ROIx/MYcqN0t7abl06JQMK/
kihbn pxwjuj, whxbld, hfsol . srrw bgcd pusl, nwnje, npr . wyunkl
bedyik nfshag, ncdygr, wjpuhl . tyou utleyy qhlwva, azhrof, dakoj . nyas
vdytd jkzihz, haqz, wbuwlj . ryfr zoxzh lsm, c
On Sunday 11 April 2004 19.49, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I thought this was no different than from the GPL, it is just more
> > clearly stated here in the OSL. But perhaps I am wrong?
>
> I use Google. If Google used OSL licensed code, then they would have
> to make the source available. That is n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
| Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|
|>| So, looking at the decision of the Gaiman/McFarlane case, that doesn't
|>| appear to be the case: despite the sequential nature of comic book
|>| production (storyine -
Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> Is the following license (not subject to copyright and in the public
> domain) free? I think it is.
Yes, the software is free. Technically, this isn't a license; the software
really is in the public domain and no license is needed. Please do put the
whole stateme
Anders Torger wrote:
> As I see it, this #9 is a sort of belt-and-braces clause which is more
> or less redundant.
This is non-free. Requiring users to implement click-wrap provisions is a
substantial restriction modification of the most annoying sort.
> The traditional way of distributing GPL
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>
>> This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
>> reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
>> license without modification. This license may not be modified
>> with
Sorry for late reply.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:03:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> Notice that there is 200bytes or so of m68k asm, most of them A-trap
> calls to the Mac OS rom, concerned. I doubt you have much chance of
> getting anything but a 100% identical code, whatever the way you go
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > This brings up the question (once again): is a legal text, such as a
> > copyright license, copyrightable? In which jurisdictions?
> Not in the US. No idea about other countries.
About once a month I seem to be running into
On 2004-04-10 20:47:28 +0100 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ> For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL
MJ> 2.0 is not DFSG-free because it terminates copyright
MJ> permission for any software patent action, including ones
MJ> unrelated to the covered
Hi Henning,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 17:51:38 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> No, law does not work that way. The phrase "preferred form for
> modification" has a clear enough, if somewhat fuzzy, literal meaning,
> and one cannot *implicitly* make it mean something that directly
> contrast to the l
Scripsit "Juergen E. Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 17:51:38 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > No, law does not work that way. The phrase "preferred form for
> > modification" has a clear enough, if somewhat fuzzy, literal meaning,
> Doesn't that phrase only apply to parag
Hi Henning,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 20:54:37 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I hadn't thought of that, but I don't think it makes a difference. A
> court would be likely to reason thus: Section 1 uses the phrase
> "source code" without defining it. On the other hand, there is an
> explicit definit
Scripsit "Juergen E. Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 20:54:37 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I hadn't thought of that, but I don't think it makes a difference. A
> > court would be likely to reason thus: Section 1 uses the phrase
> > "source code" without defining it. On
Ryan Underwood wrote:
>
> Sorry for late reply.
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:03:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>> Notice that there is 200bytes or so of m68k asm, most of them A-trap
>> calls to the Mac OS rom, concerned. I doubt you have much chance of
>> getting anything but a 100% ident
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Francesco Poli wrote:
>> > This brings up the question (once again): is a legal text, such as a
>> > copyright license, copyrightable? In which jurisdictions?
>> Not in the US. No idea about other countries.
>
> About once a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> However, the courts apparently never uphold claims of infrignement
> based on the use of essentially-identical (boilerplate) legal text
> in other contracts or licenses. (I think there was a case where the
> supplier of fill-in-the-blank forms sued fo
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> However, the courts apparently never uphold claims of infrignement
>> based on the use of essentially-identical (boilerplate) legal text
>> in other contracts or licenses. (I think there was a case where the
>> supplier of fil
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 09:15:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Perhaps you could explain the status of license and contract texts, since
> the case quoted below is of no help whatsoever. These are not, as far as I
> can tell, "the law" -- they are not laws or regulations -- and they are
> rout
Adam Kessel wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 09:15:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Perhaps you could explain the status of license and contract texts, since
>> the case quoted below is of no help whatsoever. These are not, as far as
>> I can tell, "the law" -- they are not laws or regulatio
19 matches
Mail list logo
