Re: *SPAM* (9.3) {Filename?}

2008-01-02 Thread William Rossi
This is an automated reply. I'm away for Winter break until classes begin on January 7. My office hours for Winter will be Mondays, 11:45-1:45, and Tuesdays, 3-5. I will get back to you as soon as I return. WR William Rossi, Associate Professor Director of Undergraduate Studies Department of E

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:20:27 + Sean B. Palmer wrote: > On Jan 1, 2008 10:39 AM, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > (typo: my name is Francesco, not Francisco...) > > Argh, sorry. Too much Hamlet! Heh! ;-) > > I've expanded the article this morning, and corrected the typo. I haven't had the time

Reputations of debian-legal [was: Eiffel Forum License v2]

2008-01-02 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:29:38 + Sean B. Palmer wrote: [...] > > > I've had numerous comments, incidentally, that debian-legal is just a > useless discussion forum, a hive of horrors, a place to be avoided. I > know someone who's not subscribed to it on purpose. Someone else even > said outrigh

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread John Halton
On Jan 2, 2008 4:04 PM, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the WTFPL is exactly what you are looking for. It meets all your > requirements, is DFSG-free, and several Debian packages are already > using it. Heh. I'd not come across that one. (Text is at http://www.answers.com/top

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 30 décembre 2007 à 08:55 +, Sean B. Palmer a écrit : > I'm looking for a permissive license, of the Modified BSD or MIT > variety, but I'd like for the copyright notices in each file to be > protected without having to include the whole license itself, if it's > more than a few line

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
John Halton wrote: > a. I don't think a copyright notice can be taken as an assertion of > authorship, precisely because the copyright may be owned by someone > other than the author. Hence most books that are published in the UK > include both a copyright notice (usually naming the publisher as >

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread John Halton
On Jan 2, 2008 3:05 PM, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Art. 6bis of Berne provides the right of the author to claim > authorship of the work. It seems reasonable to consider a copyright > notice as a claim of authorship (in the normal case, where > author == copyright holder). This

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
Ben Finney wrote: > "Sean B. Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Okay. So is the preservation of copyright notices already explicit > > in copyright law? > > I don't know. My current understanding is "yes" to a first > approximation. It would take actual lawyers to provide a more > trustworthy

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread Ben Finney
"Sean B. Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Jan 1, 2008 10:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > > A copyright license doesn't need to make anything explicit that > > is already explicit in copyright law. > > Okay. So is the preservation of copyright notices already explicit > in copyright law? I don

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread Sean B. Palmer
On Jan 2, 2008 11:12 AM, Sean B. Palmer wrote: > the question being the fairly subtle one of whether unqualified > permission to modify a file *entails* modification of copyright > notices. Ah, this may in fact be irrelevant! "The phrase /above copyright notice/ is somewhat misleading. Presumabl

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread John Halton
On Jan 2, 2008 11:12 AM, Sean B. Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay. So is the preservation of copyright notices already explicit in > copyright law? I'm pretty sure the answer to that would be "no", not least because most jurisdictions have no requirements for copyright notices anyway (copy

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

2008-01-02 Thread Sean B. Palmer
On Jan 1, 2008 10:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > A copyright license doesn't need to make anything explicit that > is already explicit in copyright law. Okay. So is the preservation of copyright notices already explicit in copyright law? I haven't been able to find anything about this on Google and W

debian-legal@lists.debian.org

2008-01-02 Thread Sean B. Palmer
On Jan 2, 2008 1:12 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > unrepentant users I've filed a bug report; see below. > who make it send base64'ed posts to this list with very long > and spammy headers, Do you also complain when you get gzipped transfer encoded HTTP responses from servers? > ignor

Re: Eiffel Forum License v2 [was: Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?]

2008-01-02 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Perhaps I haven't been subscribed long enough or something, but I've >found the exact opposite. Certainly the feedback that I've got has >been tough and debatory. But it's also been prompt. It's been polite. >It's been terse and informative, and all emails I've received s