S Constitution's
first amendment and the rather extensive derived jurisprudence protects
a lot of opinionated and arguably rude statements that some might
consider defamatory and that in some countries may be legally actionable
as such.
It is much better, and almost always much more productive, to avoid
personal attacks and maintain polite demeanor in discussions.
Regards,
Tom Dial
> Thoughts?
s), we would not consider it acceptable either.
~tom
of the software by Lucent & has licensed spin 6.4.5
under 3-clause BSD [2].
Are there any additional legal hurdles to clear here before somebody could
move forward RE: packaging up spin for debian?
Cheers,
Tom
[1] "Bug#296369: ITP: spin -- Powerfull model checking and
softwareverification too
I wonder what it would take to just buy the company and turn it GPLv2
It would make one heck of a kickstarter.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.auwrote:
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
I am personally trying hard to persuade Open CASCADE
people are loudly claiming to be easy to talk to, yet aren't really.
Simon's blog entry is from a while ago, so yes the comments are closed.
But you can comment here, send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and/or get me on IRC (tmarble on OFTC #debian-java or #openjdk ).
Regards,
--Tom
available to Debian
Developers and users it is apropos to work towards consensus
on the DFSG status of CDDL. I welcome your comments
and concerns.
Respectfully,
--Tom
[1] http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue
[2] http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/
[3] http
of it *are* compatible with any license as this was the specific
rationale for adding the Classpath exception [1].
Thanks,
--Tom
[1] http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re-written to clarify the relationship
between the FAQ and the license itself.
For further questions regarding intent please followup here
or in the jdk-distros Forum [3].
Regards,
--Tom
[1] debian-legal
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/threads.htm
[2] jpackage-discuss
https
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 19 mai 2006 à 23:42 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit :
It was really great to be there... I enjoyed meeting you and many
other Debian Developers. Perhaps the biggest thing for me to grok
was that Debian isn't as much a technical organization as a
social
Josh Triplett wrote:
Tom Marble wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
+ SECTION 2(c)
There have been a series of speculations about this, despite the
clarifications of FAQ #8. The term alternate technologies refers
to projects such as kaffe, gcj
,
--Tom
[1] DLJ
http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-v1.1.txt
[2] DLJ-FAQ
http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-FAQ-v1.1.txt
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
Thanks for comming to Debconf; the discussions were interesting even
if there were disagreements at times.
It was really great to be there... I enjoyed meeting you and many
other Debian Developers. Perhaps the biggest thing for me
There is no cost to Xiph for copying me on these. Jack and Monty are
well aware of the legal environment in which they are operating. Please
do not feel that it is necessary to remove me from this.
Tom
Thomas B. Rosedale
Browne Rosedale Lanouette LLP
31 St. James Avenue, Suite 850
Boston, MA
way?
Thanks in advance,
-Tom
Josh, thank you for taking the time to point me to some great reading!
-Tom
Josh Triplett wrote:
Tom deL wrote:
A product has piqued my interest and claims to be GPL but the disclaimers
and general tone of their license explanation gives me pause.
Any opinions of how truly open source
other rules and cultural concept
to foregins, and probabily it is dfsg non free, but for the purpose you talk,
maybe you find it useful.
IMHO,IANAL
Tom
--- Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald Geyer wrote:
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Harald Geyer wrote:
Is there some other as free as public
as just one
license) is probably not dfsg free becouse of what requires in dealing with
logos and trademarks [1]
[0] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html
[1] http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html on the middle of the page
Tom
--- Paul C. Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
really know how USAed is their legal system.
I think we have to consider this, otherwise i see the danger of
just-usa-DFSG-free.
Tom
_
---o0o---
Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com
:-))-:
just in MSplayer, or a text
readable just whit adobe reader?
Tom
_
---o0o---
Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com
:-))-:
over said directories). Are they still covered by copyright
law in that case?
No. There is no relationship between copyright and effort. Copyright
does not subsist in a list of facts.
They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions.
Tom says:
In UE we have a directive
--- Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's criminal in Brasil? Not a tort? Wacky. So you don't get any
damages from me infringing your copyrights?
tom:
For what i know TORT category just exist in commn law (england, american,
canadian, systems), and that hasen't
board game. One of his translators will give
me more info.
--
Tom Cato Amundsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GNU Solfege - free eartraining, http://www.gnu.org/software/solfege/
I cannot see much discussion about the python 2.0 license here,
has a agreement been reached? Will python 2.0 be included in
woody? Do you know other forums where this is discussed?
Please don't say debian-private!
--
Tom Cato Amundsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GNU Solfege - free eartraining, http
looked at was not
faked).
Got it. How about You still need a separate licence to do so from the
owner(s) of the copyright for XForms, see the XForms copyright.?
- Tom
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 01:35:29PM -0700, Tom Lear wrote:
Also I think it would be a good thing (even if not strictly
required by law) to spell out explicitly that you are not
purporting to relicense XForms itself.
Okay, I get it now. I'd
. Is that right? That would mean that we need
a separate license from the xforms people.
- Tom
Oops, forgot to say to CC me on replies... I'm not subscribed.
- Tom
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Tom Lear wrote:
I'm writing the author of xfmix to request an exception for xforms, but
I'm not clear on a point of our suggested exception.
+ You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by T.C. Zhao and
+ Mark Overmars
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Off the debian-legal list now...
Tom Lear wrote:
Well I think that sentence confuses things, specifically the word
separate which to me implies separate from the licence that xforms is
distributed under. Maybe somthing like (You already
29 matches
Mail list logo
