Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you've got the time to communicate with the author to request that,
> it'd be good. Otherwise, I don't believe the ftpmasters are requiring
> this from public domain works yet.
Thank you, and to Nathanael. I'll interpret that as "note that down,
but
=== The problematic? clause ===
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
organization (”You”) obtaining a copy of this software and associated
documentation files covered by this license (the “Software”) to use
the Software as part of another work; to modify i
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>>Is it really DFSG-free to have a license which prohibits placing a copy
>>you make of the document on an encrypted filesystem? Applying chmod o-r
>>to it (on a multiuser system)? Putting a copy of it in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And all that doesn't answer my question: Whether it's debian-legal's
> consensus that "This file is in the public domain" grants us enough
> rights to distribute it in main, or non-free, or not at all.
It's good enough, if it's placed there by the author/former copyright
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:03:53 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> Hi, Jacobo,
>
> Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
[...]
> > It allows to modify the library if it is needed to make it work
> > with other
> > piece of software ("for that purpose" == "to use the Software as
> > part of another work"), but that wordi
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Public domain is clearly defined in copyright law, and that should be
> > so in any country that has any kind of copyright law.
>
> I fear there are a couple of countries that didn't obey your
> "should".
>
> And
Hi, Jacobo,
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
El jueves, 30 de marzo de 2006 a las 16:33:59 +0300, Damyan Ivanov escribía:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
organization (???You???) obtaining a copy of this software and associated
documentation files covered by this license (th
"This file is in the public domain" is sufficient in Belgian
legislation, and in any droit d'auteur legislation I know of.
sincerely, Batist
On 30/03/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Summary:
>
> If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the
> publi
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the
> word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never
> Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be
> distributed, but that it is never Transparen
JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Public domain is clearly defined in copyright law, and that should be
> so in any country that has any kind of copyright law.
I fear there are a couple of countries that didn't obey your "should".
> Copyright only
> extends to a certain period of time afte
On 2006/03/30, at 21:04, Frank Küster wrote:
On the other hand, I have learned meanwhile that in some legislations
the term Public Domain does indeed have a defined meaning. From
this I
would conclude that declaring something "Public Domain" should be
sufficient, and that effectively no cou
On 3/30/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 3/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Those ludicrous conclusions do not follow logically from the claim,
> > > for such reasons as simple plane carriage not being a technical
> > > measure under the r
El jueves, 30 de marzo de 2006 a las 16:33:59 +0300, Damyan Ivanov escribía:
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
> organization (???You???) obtaining a copy of this software and associated
> documentation files covered by this license (the ???Software???) to use
> the
"Patrick Herzig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe this thread helps:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00018.html
Sorry, not really (or I've missed the relevant mails). I read a lot
about whether public domain licenses work as they are intended, and
something about how to pro
Maybe this thread helps:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00018.html
On 30/03/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Summary:
>
> If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the
> public domain, do I have to contact the author and let him cl
Hi,
This is the third time I bring here this software's license. It is
changed again, due to my and this list's concerns about the last
license it used.
(A brief summary)
IBPP is a library that is intented to be included in other programs
sources, i.e. to be used as part of other projects, not to
Hi,
Summary:
If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the
public domain, do I have to contact the author and let him clarify this,
or can I leave things as they are?
I recall to have been told that, in order to make a piece of software
free, it is not sufficient to sa
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Walter Landry wrote:
>> These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications.
>> I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial
>> specifications.
>
> What's the difference between "full specification for A,
18 matches
Mail list logo
