If my company buys a book, we are not allowed to make 1000 copies of it
and hand them out free to all employees and shareholders. We have no right
to make copies of the book for this kind of "internal development".
Why would it be OK to do this with copyrighted software?
Ordinary copyright
Hi everybody,
Sorry for a silly question :-9
But usual/common terms can be looked up in the dict,
most "scientific" terms are latin or greek, so its not a problem
at all.
But your abbreviations are a bit wierd to me, is there a FAQ anywhere
or is sombody so kind to point the most common one
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:40:02AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you
use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from
the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company.
The theory is that the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am sure it does, but in this discussion you said that predicting the
hacking behavior of hackers is the only thing we should consider when
we try to understand hacking and hackers.
How the heck do you get that out of a presentation that includes
John
Since we're not getting a response from OSI staff, and the off-topic material
continues, I propose to establish [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
This list will be restricted to review of licenses for Open Source Definition
compliance.
Comments?
Thanks
Bruce
At 07:19 PM 9/22/99 -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
I probably wouldn't join it, for fear of having a discussion about a
license suddenly trigger someone's hot button.
I for one have tried to refrain from off-topic things here recently, and I
do encourage others to do so, but I agree that
From: Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I probably wouldn't join it, for fear of having a discussion about a
license suddenly trigger someone's hot button.
Well of course we can have it hosted somewhere else than at copythis.org,
like at opensource.org where you control it.
The hot-buttons
On 23 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not asking you to be disciplined about you say. I'm just asking for two
lists, so that it gets said on one and not the other.
How about instead of changing the list charter (and thus causing those you
brought onto this list and are trying to keep
From: Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How about instead of changing the list charter (and thus causing those you
brought onto this list and are trying to keep here to have to jump yet
again) we create another list as an "outlet" for discussions that start
here but lose their relevancy to
Besides the nice news about ATT, I think I am still making progress with
Corel (despite what went down in LinuxWorld.com today) and the U.S. Census
sent me a copy of Tiger/Line 1988 (complete digital map of U.S. streets) which
will go into the public domain and be served from my site.
That's 1998, not 1988.
They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues,
like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years
of experience in being talmudic about the GPL.
But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GPL could use a definitions
appendix. Last time I raised
At 06:20 AM 9/23/99 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues,
like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years
of experience in being talmudic about the GPL.
But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GPL
13 matches
Mail list logo
