atents at will
by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it wrong for
someone to infringe on a patent which isn't being enforced.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My weblog doesn't detail my personal life: http://me.woot.net
Don Armstrong wrote:
1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements from
time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower court
judges out there. Most of those settlements (the Mc-D's coffee one for
instance) are often overturned or reduced in the appeals proce
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > > > We also have essenti
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera.
>
> IMO, that isn't Free Software, either.
There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see h
oftware developers,
> not ordinary joes who've never written a line of code in their lives.
However, with the last four words included, it seems to say that you
must write some form of a program yourself (and then throw in the RPC
code) in order to distribute the RPC code to anybody else,
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote:
> > * TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright
> > *
> > * Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to
> > * inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this software.
>
> Fails the des
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 05:19, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> 2. If Lindows are respecting the GPL, it means that libdvdcss is
> shipped with no additional restriction. Which means we just have
> to download libdvdcss from them, and re-distribute it. It's a
> magical world.
This is interestin
On Saturday, June 7, 2003, at 02:08 PM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Except that the LGPL permits use of the code in ways that MySQL does
not
want to allow.
Well, what do they want to allow, and what don't they want to allow?
I think it's pretty clear they're looking for a Sleepycat arrangement;
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
I looked only at 4 programs and all contains non-original sounds! I am
sure that there are many more... but that not only affect to games.
Something that I've had on my mind for some time is the default
"message received" sound f
x27;m Cc-ing -legal.
pisces:~$ apt-cache search linux | wc -l
1146
pisces:~$ apt-cache search linuxtm | wc -l
0
Regardless of whether it's necessary, it seems we don't do it. (Linux is
Linus' trademark.)
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&q
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 16:08, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Why didn't GNOME choose to get involved with these fonts when
> Bitstream releases them as Free Software fonts?
Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which
Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's invol
done than in blue-sky
idealism?
We're talking about a temporary step on the way to fully Free fonts.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
on a desert island, you never get the request and so can't
give it to them.)
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
for money? (Ignore the
fact that I distribute mpg321 via the sourceforge page for now. I'm not
sure if the fact that I maintain mpg321 for debian means I'm the
distributor there too.) Keep in mind that other distributions, such as
Red Hat, have distributed mpg321 in the past.
--
Joe Dre
ew license fails
at least DFSG 5.)
Other than that, I think this is OK.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
t to do 'free work' for
$CORP," but I argue that this case is no different from the GPL
requiring you do 'free work' for the free software community.)
I currently see no case to say this fails the DFSG.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
eepycat, the company who develops
libdb, works. You can find out more at
http://www.sleepycat.com/licensing.html .
Thanks!
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote:
> Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL FAQ, it
> does)
Yes, but it's not _creating_ a combined work (or a modified work, or
whatever), but _distributing_ it that is the issue.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 14:49, Joe Drew wrote:
> Has there been any resolution of this issue? Is it safe to close these
> bugs?
It seems there has been no resolution, but this is an issue we cannot
afford to ignore.
Who can we contact to resolve this one way or another?
--
Joe Drew &
reassign 154027 gnome-vfs2
merge 154027 153642
thanks
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:44, Joe Drew wrote:
> [Sorry if this ends up arriving twice.]
As Junichi Uekawa pointed out to me, he had previously filed a bug on
gnome-vfs2, #153642, which also includes a (preliminary) gnutls patch.
--
Joe D
aries for ORBit2 - a CORBA ORB
ii libssl0.9.6 0.9.6d-1 SSL shared libraries
ii libxml2 2.4.23-1 GNOME XML library
ii zlib1g1:1.1.4-2 compression library - runtime
-- no debconf information
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED
/www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html
>
> Do these patents also apply to programs (like libmap for example) that
> have been written from scratch, just using the ISO/IEC standards?
Yes. That's the point of patents: they are more restrictive than
copyrights because they cover the pro
there been any resolution of this issue? Is it safe to close these
bugs?
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
er yet, a mention in your .sig) will suffice.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please encrypt email sent to me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, but it would be best to have the 'official' word from him.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please encrypt email sent to me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to me that therefore it fails
section 4 of the DFSG.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please encrypt email sent to me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:16:40PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> i was going by the Open Source Definition (www.opensource.org/osd.html). i
> wonder why the debian definition is different.
the dfsg and the ossd are nearly exactly the same. In fact, upon perusing
the OSSD I came across the following:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:06:24PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > As far as I can see, it complies with the DFSG - looks like standard
> > BSD-type fare. Comments?
> >
>
> see part 3, derived works. that violates the open source guidelines. that
> doesn't mean i'm not brimming with glee that we ha
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:28:02PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> i'm sure many of you noticed the release of CMU's Speech to Text as 'Open
> Source' today on slashdot. after carefull inspection of the license, i found
> that it isn't exactly free.
What isn't free about it?
/* ==
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 06:11:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 04:22:52PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> > THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF PARALLAX
> > SOFTWARE CORPORATION ("PARALLAX"). PARALLAX, IN DISTRIBUTING THE C
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 02:44:13PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Aren't there GPL PIC assemblers and programmers?
Probably, but this is actually the license for Descent 2.
THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF PARALLAX
SOFTWARE CORPORATION ("PARALLAX"). PARALLAX, IN DISTRIBUTING THE CODE TO
END-USERS, AND SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREIN, GRANTS A
ROYALTY-FREE, PERPETUAL LICENSE TO SUCH END-USERS FOR USE BY SUCH END-USERS
IN USI
I've been looking into lsh, the GPL'd implementation of the ssh 2
protocol. I might be interested in packaging it (perhaps for
potato+1, if it's not currently usable) but I'm wondering what the
legalities of it are. Specifically, as a Canadian, can I legally
export encryption software to the non-u
On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 08:19:03PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I just checked lxdoom's src directory. The only file that isn't
> > (C) id is l_musserver.c, which is GPL. I don't think it's linked
> > into the lxdoom binary, though - it is for the music server, and
> > as far as I can see it's n
On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 07:44:49PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> It's all bad to wrose. I'm pretty sure iD would be happy to fix the
> license if we show them there's more than a couple people who still care,
> enough to make it worth the effort.
Well, I mailed John Carmack already, and you say y
On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 03:23:33PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> The problem with lxdoom (Joey Hess had it in Debian at one point) is that
> the license on the original xdoom source is so non-free it's not
> distributable. Granted, this is not what John Carmack intended, but it's
> what has happen
36 matches
Mail list logo
