Hello!
In article <8ovlia$nq2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>[...]
>There are even countries (like Germany) where you CAN'T give up your
>copyright and put things into public domain. There is no such thing as
>public domain here. You _always_ keep a certain copyright until
>someone else assumes
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>>...
>> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
>> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
>The most ques
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>>
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>>
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>[...]
>What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a
>"derivative work".
Only if the additions/changes are significant enough to be copyrightable
on their own.
>Whether or not you can even make a deriva
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>[...]
>If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one license notice
>from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that
>derivative work still receives a dual license from the original author to
Hello!
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 04:57:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one
>> >license notice
>> >from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of
7 matches
Mail list logo
