--- "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly do you mean by
> > "bare trademark license"? Can you give me some hints on what
> > to read up on?
>
> Just
Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly do you mean by "bare
trademark license"? Can you give me some hints on what to read up on?
Thanks,
mike
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
it's possible to
> accuse
> them at court (or tribunal >;-) ).
Ok. I need to reread your license. My point was that this added
securtiy can be achived by just an extract agreement that does not have
anything to do with the GPL, but with the agreed upon version of the
software to use
--- cityhunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the testament is available in html format at :
Well you can't say that I dont try!
http://malet.jeanclaude.free.fr/TESTAMENT.html-->
"""Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /TESTAMENT.html on this server.&
--- cityhunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is it me or no one taked time to give me some feedback?
gawd, please format that thing and post it to a place.
like a text file on a server.
then i can read it easier.
mike
=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.source
so you see such perversion in the law.
That is why I have proposed a GFDL consumable database :
http://fsedu.org/fsedu.pl?Consumables
that could be put under the stronger term consumable clause and
therefore none could copy it without permission... that might make an
new and interesting lice
ng like that.
See my advogato article for more details :
http://www.advogato.org/article/701.html
I think this this is a valid topic, and I have been through it all
before.
mike
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yah
nt to bind all the networked users to single
agreed on version of the software for the duration of the transation
and a means to audit that software.
The gpl is fine for what it does, trying to make that a stronger
contract is dangerous.
at least in my opinion, I am not a lawyer.
mike
ents licenses, I
think this is bogus.
>
> Essentially the freedom of the GPL codebase is reduced either way
> around.
I dont think the freedom of the codebase is reduced,
i think that you are just pointing out that the freedom of the users is
increased.
This freedo
ware could try and fake this, but my idea is that the data used for
producing the checksums changes slightly for each session. It should be
possible to agree on a give set of versions that will be usedin a
transaction.
>
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > CUT!
>
uot;.
By only allowing certified users access, and having a trust metric, it
should be possible also to eliminate long term abusers.
-----------
mike
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
__
Do you Yahoo
rminate your rights under this License. You must not use the
>"DotGNU Webservice" servicemark if you have previously violated
> any
> of the conditions in section 1.
>
> """
>
> Greetings, Norbert.
>
> --
> Founder & Steering Committee member of
> http://g
freedom to modify this software
and submit it to content providers for certification.
I think such an consent based content management is much saner than
using non-free file formats and non-free software.
What do you think?
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net
Brian
I second that. I will also volunteer to moderate.
mike
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--
license-discuss archi
you learn, in your own words, for
profit or gratis.
mike
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--
license-discuss archive is at
t the structure of the non-free-software from the
compilers representation of that non-free interface, and generate a set
of "stubs", would that not just be a header file?
When is a header file under copyright?
Please advise,
mike
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.
--- Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting James Michael DuPont ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > www.cs.berkeley.edu/~mdw/linux/gpl-ucc2b.html
> >
> > Does anyone care to comment?
>
> Matt Welsh's observation amounts to saying that the GPL (and,
articular. The
GPL is based on the assumption that any derived work based on GPL'd
software must make use of the source code, which is not necessarily
true.
]]
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yah
--- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Michael DuPont scripsit:
>
> > I want to be able to extend a BSD-Like licensed code into a better,
> > more functional and GPLed module, where It cannot be "Hit and Run"
> (or
> > was that "Embrac
--- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Michael DuPont scripsit:
>
> > Sorry, I dont mean to do that exactly, it the question of my
> > contribution back. Do I have to put my changes under the same
> license,
> > or can I make them GPLed?
>
> Yo
--- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Michael DuPont scripsit:
>
> > please advise : it this a BSD like license?
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> > can I convert it to GPL?
> > it seems that
> > "1. Redistributions of source code must r
NTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspe
David,
thanks for you comments and help.
Not understanding too much about lawyer, I get easily confused by these
issues.
Thanks again,
mike
--- David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 27 January 2003 11:33 pm, James Michael DuPont wrote:
>
> > The cvs does req
e.net/2003/01/28/rtl.i/apple-gcc-rtl.gz
contains a 800k tar of the modified apple gcc sources in RDF format via
the introspector.
mike
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
an I create and
distribute it under the GPL? or only under the APSL?
mike
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--
license-
Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 August 2002 07:32 am, James Michael DuPont wrote:
>
> > Can a person distribute just a DLL or lib without the source code
> being
> > able to compile directly?
> >
> > Or Even worse :
> > if other peo
stated.
As far as I can tell from the GPL, all sources that do not belong
to the standard system install have to be provided, not just the name
of the lib used.
I am looking forward to your comments,
Thanks,
mike
=
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net
27 matches
Mail list logo
