Hi everyone,
As a resident of San Francisco whose apartment window shows up in Google
Maps's new "Street View" technology, I'm wondering if there is a way to
subvert the legality of the pictures by displaying, say, copyrighted
material in my window. Or some such.
This is almost entirely theoretic
Hi Alessandro,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:17:40AM +0200, Alessandro Argentini wrote:
> I want to ask if it is legal to create 3d models (with programs like
> Blender) of industrial objects like furniture, cars, electronics,
> architecture, etc. and distribute them under an open source license.
>
I want to ask if it is legal to create 3d models (with programs like
Blender) of industrial objects like furniture, cars, electronics,
architecture, etc. and distribute them under an open source license.
Are such objects protected by copyrights? Do industrial design rights
affect the creation or
MJ Ray wrote:
> Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, in your opinion, houses are not made using tools and binary packages
> are not made using compilers?
No, what I *said* is that "tools" are not "materials", which they are
not -- at least not unless you use them as such. If you build a house
o
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] would it make something any less
> > a fee if someone can trade their work as payment?
>
> N.B. the idea that trading agreement to copyleft is a substitute for fee
> payment (i.e. that the basis for copyleft licensing is a quid-pro
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 00:55:43 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:30:36 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > And I mean, I know what a GR is for, why are you telling me? It's
> > > still not a *good solution* for deciding
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >>7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or publicly
> >>perform modifications to the Distribution made using proprietary materials
> >>that cannot be released in source format under conditions of this license;
> >
> > Is t
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> No, punting to a GR [...] ends up with -legal folks complaining that
>> the resolution doesn't make sense.
> I think that most are reasonable and do that only if the resolution
> includes no explanation.
One o
MJ Ray wrote:
> Martin Millnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>
>>7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or publicly
>>perform modifications to the Distribution made using proprietary materials
>>that cannot be released in source format under conditions of this license;
>
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:10:36 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
[...]
> Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence.
Indeed: see the last sentence of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html
>
> > [...]
> >
MJ Ray wrote:
> I'll let the PP answer for himself, but mention that money can be seen as
> a trick and you can read more about that view in Robert Tressell's book The
> Ragged-Trousered Philanthropist, which is PD at Gutenberg; and also that
> local exchange trading schemes exist, but would it ma
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Two different analogous licenses might be:
>
> By distributing the covered work, you agree that the copyright holder
> can sue you for violations of the license.
>
> If you distribute the covered work, the licensor agrees not to sue you
> in any
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:30:36 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And I mean, I know what a GR is for, why are you telling me? It's
> > still not a *good solution* for deciding these things; it's a last
> > resort, and the only other option
Martin Millnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or publicly
> perform modifications to the Distribution made using proprietary materials
> that cannot be released in source format under conditions of this license;
[...]
> Section 7 se
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:08:31AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> That's true, as an ideal. In reality, you can't expect every DD or even
> maintainer to subscribe to -legal except when they've got a particular
> problem to discuss.
Sure, but you don't need or want that. All you need is an unbias
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:09:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Why doesn't it matter? If I've been sued because of something I've actually
> done that infringed the license, then surely the DFSG and Debian shouldn't
> be concerned with that (other than the question of whether what I've done is
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> That's mostly because -legal won't even say that the GPLv2 is DFSG-free,
> except in so far as it's explicitly listed as being DFSG-free.
Got a reference for that?
GPLv2 is a very frequently-suggested DFSG-free licences, has been the
subject of rep
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> > And what about societies without money? "fee" does NOT equal "money".
> > Your "common knowledge" is not my understanding ...
>
> Okay, now I'm really curious. Exactly which "societies wi
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> and a vaguely interesting note is:
>
> * actually suing based on the license might be complicated by a
> choice of venue
>
> That you can argue the latter is analogous to a "fee" isn't really
> very interesting. That some people are c
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
> GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
> how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
> the largest collection of "s
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:17:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:44AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer
> > have that freedom[1]. [...]
> > [1] Technically, not the right to "choose a venue", but
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:54:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 04:51:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:25:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Additionally, personally I don't think it's unreasonable for people to
> > > say "if you use my
Martin Millnert wrote:
> 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or publicly
> perform modifications to the Distribution made using proprietary materials
> that cannot be released in source format under conditions of this license;
> Section 7 seems suspicious.
Isn't that j
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>>Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>So, the soundfont license needs to be very permissive, but I don't think
>>>there should be any concern about the tool used to create it.
>>
>>The license of the s
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:08:39PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>> I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call
>> it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whatever) where our policy with regard to
>> individual software's licenes could be discusse
25 matches
Mail list logo
