The possible Toy Story connection is mearly an interesting coincedence. The
current logo was decided by vote. The releases being named after Toy Story
characters is offically approved by Pixar. (The first release of Debian was
made while a Pixar employee was head of the project. The Debian
br Your analysis ignores the fact that the GNU FDL does not permit
br Invariant Sections to be omitted entirely from the work when it
br is redistributed. If the GNU FDL did that, it would take a giant
br step towards DFSG-freeness.
Interpretation B -- which you probably meant -- is
Nous avons le plaisir de vous annoncer que
votre commande Eurorest contenant :
1. Un chèque hôtelier international Eurorest - 1 exempl.
2. Un réglement du système Eurorest -1 exempl.
vient de vous être envoyée à l'adresse:
Leemans Serge
14 rue du bac
69600 Oullins
France
Vous recevrez votre
Carbon Copy to debian-legal for their advice
Please Carbon-Copy both mailinglists when doing a follow-up.
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:28:15PM +0200, Henning Sprang wrote:
Hi,
As Holger pointed out to me, it could prove very important, that we
define a clear copyright for the contents of the
IANAL AFAIK there are about five versions of the Creative
Commons License.
He was talking about the attribution license...
Some of them are very restricting. e.g. don't modify my beautiful
painting. But a wiki is about allow others to modify ( improve it )
Question to [EMAIL
Hi Geert,
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 16:24 +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
[...]
As Holger pointed out it could be very complicated to even change the
copyright after people put even a bit of content in, I put a copy of as
well as a link to the creative commons 2.5 attribution license in the
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:15:54PM +0200, Henning Sprang wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 16:24 +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
snip/
The wiki is at http://faiwiki.informatik.uni-koeln.de
IANAL AFAIK there are about five versions of the Creative Commons License.
Some of them are very
Hi debian-legal, hi fai :-)
On Friday 05 August 2005 17:29, Geert Stappers wrote:
| Under the following conditions:
| by
| Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
| author or licensor.
Sounds reasonable to me.
unfortunatly not be me: i hereby request you to
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:29:20 +0200 Geert Stappers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:15:54PM +0200, Henning Sprang wrote:
[...]
creative commons attribution 2.5 is one of these, that one that
allows absolute freedom apart from the original author must be
mentioned. Sorry for not posting a
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
a self-selected crew of ideologues with brazen contempt
for real-world law and no fiduciary relationship to anyone is not too
swift -- whether or not they have law degrees (or university chairs in
law and legal history). Not all debian-legal participants deserve to
be
Henning Makholm wrote:
On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that the Elektrostore
swirl is independently created starting from a straight brush stroke.
http://henning.makholm.net/debian/swirls.xcf is the logo bar from
www.elektrostore.se, with a genuine Debian swirl in another layer -
Francesco Poli wrote:
Version 2.5 licenses feature *some* little improvements, but they do not
solve, AFAICT, all the issues that were found out in 2.0 ones.
However, the problem is well in hand. Debian is working with the CC people on
a draft
new version (3.0?) and it appears that there
On Friday 05 August 2005 07:24 am, Geert Stappers wrote:
Question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Which license (and which version of it) is adviced for a wiki
in the spirit of DFSG?
Obviously these fine folks have decided to seek a license which is DFSG, but
it begs the questions, is a DFSG license
13 matches
Mail list logo
