Anthony Towns writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> you're not a lawyer.
So, do you have anything to say about what Nath
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:06:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> you're not a lawyer.
Anthon
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
>> Just a quick chirp from a d-l lurker with a JD that the above is a pretty
>> common concept in consumer protection type laws and, as referenced, the
>> UCC.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
>> I did some focus group research for Microsoft a few years
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
> legal liability.
Those liabilities occur in either case, so they're not particularly
interesting to discuss. Doing something that is against the letter and
spirit of a software l
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>> Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence
>> given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers
>> recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it
>> would be wise to use emphasised t
Juan M. Mendez wrote:
> On 10/9/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Without a piece of paper with Adam's signature saying otherwise,
>> the copyright remains with him. So Ed should ensure he does not
>> change the copyright notice.
> So, I have been investigating.
>
> It see
Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Juan M. Mendez" wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> So, I have been investigating.
>>
>> It seems Adam Bryant developed a new version 5 of conquer:
>> http://www.cs.bu.edu/ftp/fs/pub/adb/beta/
>>
>> where all the files hold notices disallowing redistribution of t
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> OK, another stab at this beast!
>
> I've been in contact with Mark Delany, the Yahoo! engineer that wrote the
> draft and administrates the DomainKeys SourceForge project. HINAL though,
> AFAIK.
>
> On Saturday 17 June 2006 19:41, Joe Smith took the opportunity to say:
Matthew Wala wrote:
>> And people can copy&paste
>> that code out of your project and reuse it elsewhere under
>> the original (BSD) terms.
> Doesn't section 2b say that projects reusing BSD code from a GPL'd
> project have to be GPL'd?
No. This is a matter of identifying the individual works ma
The title of this thread made me think, "Gee, I'd love to conquer
relicensing." I'm certainly not a relicensing master yet. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm new dealing with licenses and I've been trying to catch up, however
> I need advice.
>
> Edward M Barlow wrote "conquer",
MJ Ray wrote:
> and maybe some other bits too (CC3.0 is a long licence). The Scotland
> one is far briefer, especially when viewed in context, and it has the
> apparently crucial difference of including 'effect or intent'.
I'm actually curious as to why this is apparently crucial; I haven't seen
Matthew Wala wrote:
> The new BSD
(meaning, without the forced-advertising clause)
> and GPL licenses are considered compatible, but how are the
> requirements of the BSD license satisfied when BSD licensed code is
> included in GPL projects (eg, the Linux kernel)?
(1) Include the copyright no
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> you're not a lawyer.
Yes, I'm not a lawyer. Do not rely on anything
MJ Ray wrote:
> How can anyone discuss decisions made by a secret process for secret
> reasons in any useful way? If that decision is to be changed, it helps
> to know how and why it was made, but we simply have almost no data on it.
This is the part which is really frustrating about CC, actuall
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 12:06 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Worse, the PDF description of the parallel distribution amendment appears
>> to describe an amendment which is less restrictive than necessary for
>> Debian's purposes (see comment 11). (Proper parallel distribu
Ryan Finnie wrote:
> Walter,
>
> Thank you for your comments (everybody else too). Sorry for not
> following up sooner; please see question below.
>
> On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help wi
Ryan Finnie wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
> help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
>
> 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
> OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company
>
Øystein Gisnås wrote:
> I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package
> libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns:
>
> * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link
> against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file
>
ishttp://cv
Michael Poole wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode writes:
>
>>> Do you have any evidence to indicate that these byte streams contain
>>> any copyrightable or otherwise protected content?
>>
>> They look creative to me. I certainly couldn't write them independently,
>> on
>> my own. Under modern copyright
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
> >
> > Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to ne
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient "all rights
>> otherwise reserved to the copyright holder".
>
> Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of
> a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights.
>
> To
Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
> might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
> header:
>
> #!bin/bash
> #
> # Let this be know
Ben Finney wrote:
> "Dr. ERDI Gergo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> [Please CC replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Done.
>
>> I have no idea where I could get questions like this answered, so I
>> thought Debian-Legal would be a good place.
>
> You should definitely seek experienced legal opi
And people can copy&paste
that code out of your project and reuse it elsewhere under
the original (BSD) terms.
Doesn't section 2b say that projects reusing BSD code from a GPL'd
project have to be GPL'd?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention
> that you're not a lawyer.
That should be abundantly a
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Terry Hancock wrote:
> I have been a Debian user for several years now, an occasional free
> software developer, and a user of the Creative Commons By-SA license, so
> I have been following the effort to make the CCPL3.0 comply with the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines with some interest. I used
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
> distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
> distribute *only* if we dist
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
distribute *only* if we distribute source. So, GPLed sourceless == NO
PERMISSON.
I will list the usua
I spent far too long crafting a reply to this, then a pair of ISP/SMTP
errors sent it to /dev/null - this is a rushed rewrite. If you are in
a rush, points 17.1, 17.8, 17.13, 17.15 and 17.18 are most repeated
and you can get the gist from them.
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> MJ Ray wro
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] It's very frustrating to have to
> repeat the same points over and over again, because some people don't
> apparently read them before replying.
Amen.
> I can appreciate of course, that Debian legal folk, having discussed
> this already, and hav
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, fine. Let's consider the case in which TPM is "hard" to apply:
> Then isn't it an effective barrier to further modification and
> redistribution (i.e. non-free)?
It's a practical problem, not necessarily something non-free.
[...]
> I stand by my o
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:49:48 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > I don't know whether I'll have enough time to do it personally.
> > Let's do as follows: I see if I can modify the wiki page on Sunday;
> > you look at the wiki page on Monday and, if i
33 matches
Mail list logo
