from Unisys's claim that you need to pay for
a license to decode .gif files when you really don't.
mp3 encoders that employ the methods described in the patents are restricted
in various countries where such patents are permitted. There's probably
other ways to encode mp3's,
at is one of the most important
reasons why we must keep mpeg3 decoders as a part of Debian.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:27:59PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> Has anything changed about MNGs in last 3 months ???
>
Support for mng was added to a recent build of mozilla within the past month
or so.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UN
t; References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
>Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 03:20:19AM -0400
> Delivered-
On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 09:10:29PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Aug 06, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > If the clickwrap license doesn't go away, dosemu should move to non-free.
> [...]
>
> Show me where the DFSG prohibits software from using clickwrap
> licenses.
cting phpGrabComics to personal use only will prevent its inclusion in
Debian. Otherwise, I see no reason why the project would not include it.
Users who use phpGrabComics to copy and redistribute comics may find their
own problems...
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
our bug
fix must not break the pdf reader's ability to display or output the
copyright license data if it had that feature before.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
r not.
>
No. The GPL does not place any restrictions on fair use of the material. It
only grants extra rights provided you agree to follow some rules. The GNU
General Public License specifically reads: "Activities other than copying,
distribution and modification are not covered by t
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 03:14:08PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> I can think of one example of this -- the GPL itself:
>
> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
>run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use
>in the most ord
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 04:07:00PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > No. The GPL does not place any restrictions on fair use of the material. It
> > only grants extra rights provided you agree to follow some rules. The GNU
>
slaves
into freedom, making hamurgers, nuclear weapons, biochemical weapons, or
comitting what their government may consider fraud or treason. Clause 6 is
there for good reason. Don't tamper with it.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 11:12:43AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:42:00AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > >
> > > This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like
> > > XForms, M
er that part
> of the code, they're within their rights -- but, of course, that would
> greatly limit the utility of the editor.
>
Can't alter the code in Zope, but there's nothing (other than the bogus
clause in the zope license, which is probably unenforcable anyway) tha
You're right. It would be better to just extend guideline 6 to prevent
restrictions on use, or add a new guideline prohibiting licenses that infect
the program output or data files the program is used with.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ecipient only has a copy, not ownership
of the work.
> I can choose to give you a copy of, say, gcc. I can choose not to. I
> can promise you that I'll choose to give you a copy if you give me
> money in return. Am I not then selling a copy?
>
No. Very different.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > What is the difference between "charge a fee for the physical act of
> > > transferring a copy" and "sell a copy"?
>
>
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 12:51:39AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Don't say "but the user should know that he means make profit from selling a
> > _copy_ of mgetty". If you're an author, you'll find
r pretty boring news articles.
Since selling a home transfers the rights to live in that home, and the
right to sell it again in the future, it's not like this is a foriegn
concept for most people.
This is also why bestsellers say "Over 500,000,000 copies sold!" on the back
cov
doesn't prevent Debian from
giving permission on a case-by-case basis.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
paying CMU any money", not "you can't
charge any money."
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/0,4153,1014005,00.html
If SPI still owns this mark, someone needs to send Sun Microsystems a
cease-and-desist before we lose it.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 09:29:38PM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Brian Ristuccia writes:
>> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014005,00.html
>
>> If SPI still owns this mark, someone needs to send S
t screen, or prevent links to the about screen from being removed,
this clause is probably unneccessary. If the author could be convinced that
clause 2c already protects his interests, he might consider removing the
extra clause and thus prevent this from being an issue at all.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e, any license
with such a clause is not a free software license.
> [other stuff deleted]
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 03:00:52PM -0800, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> What is the DFSG and where can I read it?
>
DFSG = Debian Free Software Guidelines
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
afe (obviously
non-free) would it end up in contrib.
I find it discomforting that a very important part of the Internet is at
risk of getting entangled with patent issues and proprietary code when
there's perfectly acceptable free code and unpatented (actually
patent-expired) technologies that
Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
>
This looks like it might make a loophole for folks who want to distribute
binaries and not be affected by the GPL. Perhaps it would be safer to grant
permission for the person distributing the program to assume, for
ill resolve the licensing
issues with AOL's TiK instant messanger client, and enable us to include it
as a part of Debian GNU/Linux.
Thank you.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ce has no bearing on our ability to distribute the software.
>From what I can see, only the software license at the top of each source file
is at issue.
Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. Please keep in touch regarding
any changes you might be making to the TiK license.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that GNU Privacy Guard is available to do everything PGP does under a
free license, is tehre any reason for the developers keys to be in contrib
instead of main? Is there something here I'm missing?
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ot have this problem.
I don't like advertising clauses. I think the advertising clause makes ash
less free.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
02111-1307, USA.
I will probably work up a package within the next few weeks.
Nice job guys, thanks to everyone who contributed.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
r all patches and re-writing them.
>
Nothing in the GPL prevents an author from selling copies of his work, even
when the work is combined with substantial patches or other software under
the GPL.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 11:28:24PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 01:08:19PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > He was almost ready to use the GPL, but I pointed out that once
> > > pe
ot; but I don't know if this may introduce any
unneccessary loopholes or limitations.
* Allow distribution of the source under the plain GPL to limit license
incompatibility. ("If you choose not to excercise this option, you may
distribute this software only under the terms of the GNU General Public
License and may remove this paragraph.") This would allow parts of xmemos
that don't require xforms to be used in other GPL'd projects.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.sodan.dk/gamecode/mwpl.html
I don't see anything immediately non-free in this license. Of course it may
have hidden issues and probably conflicts with other existing free licenses,
but it in general looks better than the APSL.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROT
sed under the standard GNU General Public
License.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 03:52:22PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > http://www.sodan.dk/gamecode/mwpl.html
> >
> > I don't see anything immediately non-free in this license. Of course it may
> > have hidden issues and proba
uthors of free source software getting sued for problems in their
> code?
>
I will cc this to debian-legal for their opinion. I think these lawsuits are
rare to non-existant, and the odds of someone winning are nearly nil. Large
universities wouldn't give away software if it opened them
- Forwarded message from "Brian E. Ermovick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:47:49 -0500
From: "Brian E. Ermovick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Upstream Email
Hrmm -- I'm not about to
e seen firsthand a
certain large corporation purchase support contracts and paid downloads for
even the most miscellary pieces of software. A tool as useful as WTEST
should have no problem getting a few bucks from those with deep pockets so
long as you make it clear how they go about paying an
/www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CnYpKWbWbu0znmduZ&FQ=open-source)
>
Problems:
* Notification Clause (3)
* Advertising Clause (5)
* US Legislation Imperialism (7)
Interesting:
* Patent Infringement Clause (8)
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
u can
> conceivably rebuild the boot loader with the source and objects provided.
>
I think NeXT tried to do this and ended up releasing the full source to
their Objective C compiler.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to help create an environment where a "free" release
> is considered first, or at least seriously.
>
Best of luck. I'm thinking the XFree86 license would best suit the type of
work you're planning to do. However, I think using the FSF documentation
license or GNU GPL would encourage the production of more Free Software over
the integration of free map data into proproprietary products.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
Note that the wording of the Qt exception is very carefully done. It enables
distribution with Qt (or another free
> The one distributed by Troll Tech? That's rather limiting, and I'd
> consider the resulting program non-free, since for example we wouldn't
> be able to link it with a Qt that was modified to fix bugs. If you allow
> more, how much more? This could easily open up a loophole in the GPL.
> Perhaps you'd be better off with the MIT license in the first place.
>
Sigh.. Incompatible licenses...
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
k Overmars).
If you choose not to excercise this option, you may distribute this software
only under the terms of the GNU General Public License and may remove this
paragraph.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 11:39:51AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > You may, at your option and for the purposes of distributing
> > > > > this program in object c
of this software.
>
I know this seems silly, but it might be wise to make it clear that when
that paragraph is removed the rights granted by it are also revoked.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
um, can you provide us with
> a copy of the MS Windows license and the MSVC license? I'd bet that somewhere
> in there is a statement about your right to develop applications to execute
> on Microsoft Windows.
>
What about folks developing Microsoft Windows apps with djgpp or cyg
r bake under additional different
licenses.
* Any changes or patches received and included will be covered under
the same licenses as bake itself.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 04:00:29PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I agree with your call on the DFSG #9 violation, it's not currently Open
> Source.
>
> > From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * You may not distribute a modified version of this softw
On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 03:34:38PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What about folks developing Microsoft Windows apps with djgpp or cygwin32?
>
> Microsoft's application license explicitly prohibits you from running the
y other
licenses as noted in their respective source files, are covered by the
GNU General Public License when distributed with the Linux kernel.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
be
hosted? Sweeden is safe. Australia might be. Germany is probably not. Where
is non-us currently located?
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 05:25:03PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > My question is, do we have a server in a country where this package could be
> > hosted? Sweeden is safe. Australia might be. Germany is probably not. Where
> > is non
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:54:05PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 03:26:07PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > >
> > > The Netherlands, which should be safe. I'm not sure how having an
> > > mp3-encode on non-US will influence our mirrors t
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 10:47:22AM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
>
> > We should really have a Debian package header like
> > Prohibited-By-Thought-Police-In: with a list of ISO country codes to prevent
> > mirrors in non-free countries from picking
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 02:25:04PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 02:10:40PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > Unless there are any objections, I will download this package from Tord
> > Jansson's site in .se to pandora (a non-US machine in .nl) within t
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 02:32:03PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 02:10:40PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > Here's the contents of the copyright file I prepared:
> >
> > It was downloaded from
> > <http://home.swipnet.se/~w-82
iner
> E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WebPage: http://www.callisto.si.usherb.ca/~94246757
> RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce had indicated that there were.
>
> That's what I was asking about.
>
Does the latest version of the IBM license still require one to waive their
right to a jury trial?
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ite makes
attribution, but I couldn't find any such attribution in macperl. I don't
know if permission was granted for either.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
press or implied warranty. | */
/* +---+ */
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.magnicomp.com/rdist/rdist-eu-license.shtml
This license is weird. It prohibits non-free use, except for Linux
distributions. I think this may violate DFSG #8.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
revious OTN License terms (including the Oracle
Program License as modified by the OTN Program Use Certificate)."
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 09:36:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I figured we could occasionally use a little laugh on this list, so have a
> > look at the following two URL's:
> >
> > http://technet.oracle.co
de ?
>
> Yes.
But only if the patch is substantial enough in itself to be protected by
copyright.
Oneliners like
-if (symbol) {
+if (!symbol) {
are not substantial patches.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t from what?
>
> I regret that I don't have a copy of the FAR, but I think someone needs to
> look this up. The reason it exists is that the U.S. government has different
> rights regarding intellectual property than an individual or corporation.
>
That somehow seems unfair...
uable tool for migrating away from the
patent-encumbered gif file format, I think it's important for it to be
accessable to as many people as possible. It's a shame for it to be in
non-free if it doesn't have to be.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ftware Foundation has a few good
ones working for them. I'm sure they'd see to it that everything was taken
care of if the author of tkpgp was to assign his copyright. It is probably
worth looking into.
Good Luck.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
he rather odious
license on cs.hut.fi's ssh2, lsh remains a very worthwhile effort.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to that
>version instead].
>
> Stephen R. E. Turner
> Statistical Laboratory
> 16 Mill Lane
> Cambridge
> England
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
> 2nd September 1999
>
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
een clients based on what's
available on each side.
I do know that at least one of the commercial, proprietary SSH clients omit
IDEA encryption support to avoid the license fee.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ith that wouldn't force them to pay royalties to Troll
> > Tech, though?
>
> I don't think it's more than $2000. They can afford it :-)
>
Just curious, is Corel in a position to buy TT or Qt outright?
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
r removing crypto from
> his version as well.
>
He's right. Pretend crypto is much worse than no crypto at all.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dia for commercial distribution
without the prior approval of the author.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:24:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Oct 20, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > COPYRIGHT
> >The DBD::Pg module is free software. You may distribute
> >under the terms of either the GNU General Public License
> >or the Art
OR
>
> b) Downloadable by anyone, without fee, using a publicly-announced
> URL on the internet, for a duration of at least three years
> starting with distribution of the binary version.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know this has come up before, but it's not truly resolved, so I'll ask
again.
Why is Debian able to distribute software that uses patented LZW and RSA
algorithms from non-free, but unable to distribute mp3 encoders in the same
fashion?
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 12:50:17PM +0200, Jens Ritter wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I know this has come up before, but it's not truly resolved, so I'll ask
> > again.
> >
> > Why is Debian able to distribute software
other than the
intended start. A federal judge ruled that the Game Genie software was not a
derived work of the copyrighted software that it patched and executed, nor
was its publisher responsible for contributory infringement.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
endo v. Galoob. Game Genie ceases to function when the Nintendo game
software is removed, but is not a derivative work nor does it create a
derivative work when used, according to the court.
I'll dig up the full text of the decision if it'll help convince people in
this argument.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
;s the same page that I read and based my summary on - but it
should be helpful, especially section C, entitled "Works that Interact With
Pre-Existing Works"
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:11:12AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 08:36:09PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> >
> > *anxiously awaiting Brian's URL to the Nintendo v. Galoob thing which will
> > hopefully settle this..*
> >
>
> Here
were to create a modified version
of TiK or GAIM that used pgp or gnupg to optionally encrypt messages, would
this have to go in non-us?
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suppose the people involved and directly responsible should try to
reach a consensus on this, and perhaps take it to a vote if neccessary.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 11:31:19AM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia writes:
>
> > Wouldn't seizing said machines violate the electronic communication privacy
> > act or something similar by interefering with email on those machines as
> > well?
older lawsuits against Corel for not
excercising due-diligence in preventing the losses incurred by the delayed
release, wasted CD's and other materials, and civil suits by copyright
holders because they failed to listen to the copyright holders when they
complained about the incorrect license
rams
> restricted by their authors.
>
> gimp-nonfree should be renamed and reclassified as a free non-us
> package.
>
I think such a change in classification would require a change in Debian
policy. I, for one, endorse such a change. However, I can't speak for all of
Debian.
ready a
fully functional mailer.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
>
>
> - End forwarded message -
>
> --
> James (Jay) Treacy
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ribute a modified version, we can only do so by distributing the
original and a patch - which makes distributing pre-built .deb files
impossible. If Majordomo has serious bugs that the license doesn't permit us
to fix, and the upstream authors don't show signs of extreme dilligence in
gett
l the IBM JDK or
IBM JRE and is also a member of the public will be a licensee of "Redhat 6.0
Linux," since "Redhat 6.0 Linux" is licensed to the public as a whole.
Therefore, anyone can use the JRK or JRE and satisy the JDK and JRE license
requirements at the same time.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
's a perl script.
While I find licenses with patch clauses odious, they fall within the limits
of the DFSG.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
notification clause and other noxious clauses in the regulation lifted. See
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/01/13/1220222
(But I'm sure they might lift it on their own if Debian build servers
started sending them thousands of messages a day! :)
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROT
On Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 12:09:07PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > > While I find licenses with patch clauses odious, they fall within the
> > > limits
>
icense sounds DFSG free, and I think changing the licenses on the
web pages to one like these sounds pretty good.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
thorization, on the
other hand, is perfectly ok even if you don't have permission to distribute
the combination of the two. Any combination of those works would be done by
the end user. Only if the end user chooses to distribute the result would
they (not you) be in violation of the copyright.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
