Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said:
> > Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents.
> >
> > The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
> > about "the rights attached to the pro
This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
> > point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
>
> The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
>
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> This still concerns me...
> I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not yet
> convinced that this clause passes the DFSG.
>
> What I do not understand basically boils down to:
>
> How can a license (allow a licensor to)
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:41:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
> >> point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
> >The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
> >ab
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:47:32 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala.
> >
> > If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
>> point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
>The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
>about "the rights attached to the program" and other such phrases. To
>th
6 matches
Mail list logo
