On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 06:09:19PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Branden> Right; but it remains true even if someone steals your
> Branden> modifications, corrections or extensions to the work off
> Branden> your computer and submits them to Best Practical
> Branden> Solutions, LLC.
Brian,
Thanks for the follow-up. I read the post on debian-legal, and
visited the Creative Commons discussion lists archive to see the
discussion there. I believe that I understand the issues.
Let me be clear on Sleepycat's position: The documentation and
the source code will be licensed in a
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:57:13AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> That is a fallacy. The word-processor is capable of producing content,
> hence it is not useless without pre-existing content to work with. An
> emulator has no such luxury.
This depends on the emulator.
An emulator designed for
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:31:13AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> with. Like, we wouldn't let a new word-processor into main without at
> least one Free document in the word processor's format, and we wouldn't
That is a fallacy. The word-processor is capable of producing content,
hence it is no
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:55:47PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> 1. Shouldn't we add a note to the Policy (or the Developer's Reference)
>that there should be a license statement for the Debian-specific
>parts in debian/copyright? I think we should, and it should be a
>"must" directive p
Hi,
in particular, tetex-base has a woeful copyright file (#218105), and
while I'm trying to resolve this, I came across the fact that some of
the Debian-specific code (maintainer scripts, templates,...) does
not have a license statement. The maintainer scripts don't even have a
proper copyright s
* Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040708 17:34]:
> It seems that that's not the case. We actually don't allow packages into
> main if there's not publicly-available, DFSG-free data for them to work
> with. Like, we wouldn't let a new word-processor into main without at
> least one Free docum
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> It seems that that's not the case. We actually don't allow packages into
> main if there's not publicly-available, DFSG-free data for them to work
> with. Like, we wouldn't let a new word-processor into main without at
> least one Free document in the word processor's format
Branden Robinson wrote:
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
ROM, because the environments we
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:00:47 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think there's a fairly significant difference between an emulator
that will load and display an "insert ROM" image (eg. NES, SNES), and
one that requires a specific non-free image in order to be able to do
anythi
Branden Robinson wrote:
Evan was fishing for support for his position in a recent thread entitled
"Visualboy Advance question."[1]. "Some other debian-legal people" appears to
refer to Humberto Massa, in one message.[2]
To be clear: I was soliciting information, not hustling for votes. No
o
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:51:16AM +0200, Matias Hermanrud Fjeld wrote:
> In the LICENCE.HYDRA file og the hydra package, it is stated that
>
> "Anyone may use this software and pass it on to other persons or
> companies as long as it is not charged for!"
>^
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:51:16AM +0200, Matias Hermanrud Fjeld wrote:
> Hello.
>
> In the LICENCE.HYDRA file og the hydra package, it is stated that
>
> "Anyone may use this software and pass it on to other persons or
> companies as long as it is not charged for!"
>
Hello.
In the LICENCE.HYDRA file og the hydra package, it is stated that
"Anyone may use this software and pass it on to other persons or
companies as long as it is not charged for!"
^^^
Is this compatible with the DFSG?
Please CC me, I'm not o
14 matches
Mail list logo
