> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > A license should be granting permission, not taking away rights. Period.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:45:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> s/^A /A free /
>
> Very succinctly put, though.
Agreed.
However, (given that there
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> A license should be granting permission, not taking away rights. Period.
s/^A /A free /
Very succinctly put, though.
- Matt
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Can we generalize and say something like any license which attempts to
> restrict beyond the lowest common denominator of copyright laws that
> exist today?
>
> Or is the Autocrat Test simply a jurisdictional test?
Neither. What I think it's about is precisely this fro
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:40:01AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> > On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat
> >> Test"
> >> or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
> >> holder
> >> d
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:38:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
> >otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
>
> I think this would actually bring de
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 01:13:43AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> "Autocrat" and "dictator" are roughly synonymous and just refer to
> systems of government where all power stems from a single individual;
> the UK was an autocracy for much of its history without individual
> freedom being signific
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 18:40, Joe Moore wrote:
> > On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat
> >> Test"
> >> or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
> >> holder
> >> does not get t
> On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat
>> Test"
>> or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark)
>> holder
>> does not get to make up his or her own laws?
The Ideocrat Test? Or per
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:05:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:49:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around
> > > half-formed in my
On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
I think this would actually bring debian closer to FSF's position: "If
a contract-based license restrict
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:05:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The above did not get much discussion; I'd just like to AOL it, and
> suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would
> otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
>
> Yes, this will vary by jurisdiction, bu
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 08:05, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:49:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around
> > > half-formed in my head for a li
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:49:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around
> > half-formed in my head for a little while now, regarding Free licences. I
> > don't know if
13 matches
Mail list logo
