But Helix DNA can handle other CODECs, too. Even Ogg Vorbis-support is
under development. If problems of RPSL will be rectified, even without
Real*-CODECs Helix DNA might be both free and useful software.
I guess so...but are we really able to do anything with it that
we can't do witho
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, +18:05:02 EET (UTC +0200),
Lawrence Lessig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pressed some keys:
> On 2/10/03 3:38 PM, "Juhapekka Tolvanen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But it would be really irritating situation, if somebody creates
> > nice software documentation that is meant to be fr
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:16:44PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The impression I got from reading the site was that they intended them
> as general-purpose licenses for use by anyone who's turned off by
> legal minutiae. Perhaps it goes without saying that as a denizen of
> debian-legal, I consi
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 06:12:21PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> The FSF has been working with the Real people on the license. It's a
> slow process, but the dialog is ongoing and productive. They have a
> strong interest in making the license into a GPL-compatible Free
> Software license.
Wow,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 05:38:26PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
> of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
> readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
>
Richard Stallman wrote:
> The Creative Commons licenses are not supposed to be used for software.
> Doesn't the Creative Commons site say so? It ought to.
http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3321 makes it clear the Creative
Commons does not intend to get involved with software licensing. Th
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, +00:38:27 EET (UTC +0200),
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pressed some keys:
> These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
> of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
> readers of debian-legal think about
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 17:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
> of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
> readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
> those lic
These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
those licences carefully
The Creative Commons licenses are not suppos
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Attribution"
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of
"Derivative Work":
| "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
| and other pre-existing works, such
These are really important projects that claim to be free in the sense
of freedom. But I'd like to know, what Free Software Foundation and
readers of debian-legal think about those licences. So, please, evaluate
those licences carefully
And I hope, that then FSF can make some statements about th
11 matches
Mail list logo
