On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL contains one, and only one, _definition_ of the phrase "work
> > based on the Program". (The word Program, capitalized, is defined
> > previously.) That _definition_, in its entirety, is:
> >
> >
> > a "work based on the Program" mean
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh Lord. Deep breath. Please, please, please read to the end of this
> one before responding to each line on the fly.
Done.
> The GPL contains one, and only one, _definition_ of the phrase "work
> based on the Program". (The word Progr
Oh Lord. Deep breath. Please, please, please read to the end of this
one before responding to each line on the fly.
The GPL contains one, and only one, _definition_ of the phrase "work
based on the Program". (The word Program, capitalized, is defined
previously.) That _definition_, in its enti
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think this "attempts to" quip is meaningless.
> > >
> > > How w
On 5/7/05, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
> Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
It's really cool to have an actual lawyer weigh in, even if TINLAIAJ. :-)
> On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards
Er, not to be paranoid or anything, but before someone else quotes
this out of context ...
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of the above. The license text, as actually written, contains an
> erroneous statement:
>
> ... a "work based on the Program" means either the
We actually seem to be getting somewhere, slowly.
On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think this "attempts to" quip is meaningless.
> >
> > How would you like me t
> Is public domain software DFSG-compliant?
>
> Sorry if this is a FAQ;
Actually it sort of is, albeit in an unofficial one.
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#public_domain
Googling "DFSG public domain FAQ" snags it.
--
Barak A. Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hamilton Institute, NUI M
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I believe you're objecting to the "that is to say" phrase, which
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:27:54PM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 05:03:09AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> >> Note: I am replying only to -legal for now, someone with more
> >> firm knowledge than either me or Mr. Edwards should
[Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
> contract, one is entitled to contrac
11 matches
Mail list logo
