"Eddy Petrişor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello all,
I was thinking on making a logo for the Debian Games Team but I need
to combine the open use logo with an icon which is distributed under a
different license.
My questions are:
1) Are any of the following l
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
/**
* 'Alleged RC4' Source Code picked up from the news."
* From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John L. Allen)"
* Newsgroups: comp.lang.c"
* Subject: Shrink this C code for f
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >They do, but those clauses have been pointed out as being problematic
> >multiple times. Copyright licenses should not need to invoke copyright
> >law to secure protections which trademark law grants to trademarks.
>
> And still
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>They do, but those clauses have been pointed out as being problematic
>multiple times. Copyright licenses should not need to invoke copyright
>law to secure protections which trademark law grants to trademarks.
And still, nobody has been able to convincingly explain why t
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 29 June 2006 01:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > > /**
> > > * 'Alleged RC4' Source Code picked up from the news."
> > > * From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John L. Allen)"
> > >
Török Edvin writes:
> On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
> > good questions. Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
> > US, there are two or three different ways to analyze
On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
good questions. Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
US, there are two or three different ways to analyze whether one work
is derived from
Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
good questions. Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
US, there are two or three different ways to analyze whether one work
is derived from another copyrighted work, and I imagine most other
countries have their o
Hi,
I have a couple of questions regarding the distribution of GPL
software on commercial CDs.
[I know the advice from debian-legal doesn't have legal authority, but
I turned to your help, since you have a lot of experience dealing with
licenses/copyrights.]
[If this really is the wrong list, ple
I'm puzzled by what looks like a duplicated reply. I reply to
only one.
dtufs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > but UNACCEPTABLY protects integrity of the
> > author's source (DFSG 4) due to attempting to
> > enforce a super-trademark in III.1.a
>
> The PHP License 3.0 and the Apache License 1.0 (which
>
dtufs writes:
> > That's true, but you don't get to stake the moral
> > high ground *after* replying at the same level.
>
> I wasn't at the same level. I just stated my opinion
> on how things work in the real world. In contrast, the
> other poster had directly insulted the person who
> wrote the
dtufs writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>
> First, Michael, thanks for your balanced response.
>
>
> > it is non-free to require a distributor to serve
> > copies of the work to third parties
>
> Well, conditions in Section 3 of the GPL v2 actually
> do require distributor to serve copies of the
> but UNACCEPTABLY protects integrity of the
> author's source (DFSG 4) due to attempting to
> enforce a super-trademark in III.1.a
The PHP License 3.0 and the Apache License 1.0 (which
are both approved as free software license by the FSF,
and as open source license by the OSI) require exactly
th
First and foremost, if you're going to contribute on this list, please
stop using aliases and start using your real name so that others
understand on whose behalf you are speaking and more importantly, can
connect your arguments with arguments you have made previously.
Second, arguing on freeness
Michael Poole wrote:
First, Michael, thanks for your balanced response.
> it is non-free to require a distributor to serve
> copies of the work to third parties
Well, conditions in Section 3 of the GPL v2 actually
do require distributor to serve copies of the work to
third parties.
> Vaguenes
> but UNACCEPTABLY protects integrity of the
> author's source (DFSG 4) due to attempting to
> enforce a super-trademark in III.1.a
The PHP License 3.0 and the Apache License 1.0 (which
are both approved as free software license by the FSF,
and as open source license by the OSI) require exactly
th
Hello all,
I was thinking on making a logo for the Debian Games Team but I need
to combine the open use logo with an icon which is distributed under a
different license.
My questions are:
1) Are any of the following licenses compatible with the Debian Open
Use Logo License?
a) GPL
b) CC-BY 2
On Thursday 29 June 2006 01:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > [ Cc-ing the bug report, so we have it in the bts, too ]
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > - Now the real problem: shc.c
> >
> > Lookit at it we have:
> >
> > /**
> > * This software
18 matches
Mail list logo
