Le Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:46:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > I found #675435 where it was written that CC-BY-SA-2.0 was not suitable
> > for Debian, and now I am confused.
> >
> > Could you let us know your position
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:11:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Sure, but if you have a program, then that is an original work.
> > Slamming a new license on it creates a new original work (there is still
> > creative content in it), which is based on the original "original work".
>
> I believe
Bas Wijnen writes:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:31:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The key phrase is "original," not "work." Original work generally
>> means, in US copyright law, that there is some creative component or
>> content that makes it copyrightable. It's the same phrase used to
>>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:31:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bas Wijnen writes:
>
> > You're talking about the definition of a "work" here, I presume? I
> > don't see how that makes any difference. It doesn't say "two or more
> > works"; just one is enough.
>
> The key phrase is "original,"
Bas Wijnen writes:
> You're talking about the definition of a "work" here, I presume? I
> don't see how that makes any difference. It doesn't say "two or more
> works"; just one is enough.
The key phrase is "original," not "work." Original work generally means,
in US copyright law, that there
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:37:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:28:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Er, I don't understand why you think this is significant. The work
> >> formed by taking the original and putting it under a different
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:28:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Er, I don't understand why you think this is significant. The work
>> formed by taking the original and putting it under a different license
>> is trivially a derivative work.
> While it's not defined to
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:46:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear FTP team,
>
> I found #675435 where it was written that CC-BY-SA-2.0 was not suitable
> for Debian, and now I am confused.
>
> Could you let us know your position on the possiblity to accept CC-BY-SA-2.0
> by
> upgrading it t
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> I missed this thread until I stumbled on a bug.
> 4b applies to derivative works only. Underscores mine.
> /
> | You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
> | digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this
> | Licens
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:28:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Er, I don't understand why you think this is significant. The work formed
> by taking the original and putting it under a different license is
> trivially a derivative work.
While it's not defined to my liking in the CC* set, it defi
Hi,
On Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 11:38:45 +0300, vangelis mouhtsis wrote:
> Hi,
> I live in North Greece Thessaloniki and here we have the biggest Debian
> community.
> I'm wondering why was non announcement for that event at all.
> Or maybe it is a natural behavor?
I think you just missed it. There w
Hi,
in Debian we have some infrastructure projects which to my perception are
quite important because they are:
1. directly visible for the user
2. globally needed for all packages
I'm personally speaking about I18N and DebTags - may be there are more.
After some observation I came to the co
12 matches
Mail list logo
