Messages 75xx


00: Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0 (John Cowan)
01: Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0 (Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.)
02: MIT-style license with a Code Integrity clause (Alex Rousskov)
03: Re: MIT-style license with a Code Integrity clause (Karsten M. Self)
04: Re: Vacation messages to list posts (Karsten M. Self)
05: Re: Vacation messages to list posts (Paul Guyot)
06: Re: Vacation messages to list posts (Rick Moen)
07: Why? (Jan Dockx)
08: Re: Why? (David Presotto)
09: Re: Why? (Alex Rousskov)
10: Re: Why? (Ian Lance Taylor)
11: Re: Why? (Alex Rousskov)
12: Re: Why? (Rick Moen)
13: Re: Why? (John Cowan)
14: Re: Why? (Alex Rousskov)
15: Re: Why? (Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.)
16: Re: Why? (Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.)
17: Re: Why? (Lawrence E. Rosen)
18: Re: Why? (Jan Dockx)
19: Re: Why? (Peter Fairbrother)
20: Re: Why? (Rick Moen)
21: Re: Why? (Peter Fairbrother)
22: Re: Why? (Rick Moen)
23: Will we be sued? (Lawrence E. Rosen)
24: Re: Why? (David Presotto)
25: Re: Why? (John Cowan)
26: Re: Why? (Alex Rousskov)
27: Re: Why? (John Cowan)
28: Re: Why? (Alex Rousskov)
29: Re: Why? & Re: Will we be sued? (Nathan Kelley)
30: Re: Why? & Re: Will we be sued? (John Cowan)
31: Re: Why? & Re: Will we be sued? (Nathan Kelley)
32: Re: Why? (Jan Dockx)
33: Re: Why? & Re: Will we be sued? (Rick Moen)
34: www.fsf.org/licenses/NYC_Seminars_Jan2004.html (Alexander Terekhov)
35: Re: Sauron: Offer and Acceptance (John Cowan)
36: Understanding Open Source Software - by Red Hat's Mark Webbink, Esq. (Ian Lance Taylor)
37: For approval: Open Test License v1.1 (Alex Rousskov)
38: For Approval: Linisys Open Source License v1.4 (Chris Tusa)
39: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1 (Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.)
40: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1 (Alex Rousskov)
41: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1 (Lawrence E. Rosen)
42: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1 (Alex Rousskov)
43: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1 (Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.)
44: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1 (Alex Rousskov)
45: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1 (Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.)
46: Re: For approval: Open Test License v1.1 (Alex Rousskov)
47: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues? (Russell McOrmond)
48: Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues? (Alexander Terekhov)
49: IBM's open patent licensing policy (Lawrence E. Rosen)
50: Re: IBM's open patent licensing policy (Alexander Terekhov)
51: Re: IBM's open patent licensing policy (Alexander Terekhov)
52: bare license (dlw)
53: Re: bare license (Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.)
54: Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues? (Russell McOrmond)
55: Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues? (Alexander Terekhov)
56: VERY URGENT. (MRS JOY APOHA)
57: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Russell McOrmond)
58: Re: bare license (daniel wallace)
59: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Alexander Terekhov)
60: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Russell McOrmond)
61: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (jcowan.reutershealth.com)
62: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Ken Brown)
63: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Robin 'Roblimo' Miller)
64: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Russell McOrmond)
65: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Brian Behlendorf)
66: Re: bare license (Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.)
67: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Alexander Terekhov)
68: Re: bare license (daniel wallace)
69: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Russell McOrmond)
70: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Alexander Terekhov)
71: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Russell McOrmond)
72: New Public License (daniel wallace)
73: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source. (Ben Reser)
74: For Approval: Fair License (James William Pye)
75: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source (Russell McOrmond)
76: Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source (Robert Osfield)
77: Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source (Ken Brown)
78: Public domain mistake? (daniel wallace)
79: Re: Public domain mistake? (Alex Rousskov)
80: Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source (Robert Osfield)
81: Re: Public domain mistake? (jcowan.reutershealth.com)
82: Re: Public domain mistake? (Alex Rousskov)
83: Re: Public domain mistake? (Lawrence E. Rosen)
84: Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source (Alexander Terekhov)
85: Re: Public domain mistake? (daniel wallace)
86: Re: For Approval: Linisys Open Source License v1.4 (Chris Tusa)
87: Re: Public domain mistake? (Russell McOrmond)
88: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL (daniel wallace)
89: Re: Public domain mistake? (Russell McOrmond)
90: Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL (John Cowan)
91: Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source (Robert Osfield)
92: Norton AntiVirus detected and quarantined a virus in a message yo u sent. (NAV for Microsoft Exchange-MAIL1)
93: Norton AntiVirus detected and quarantined a virus in a message yo u sent. (NAV for Microsoft Exchange-MAIL1)
94: Norton AntiVirus detected and quarantined a virus in a message yo u sent. (NAV for Microsoft Exchange-MAIL1)
95: Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL (daniel wallace)
96: Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source (Alexander Terekhov)
97: Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source (Robert Osfield)
98: Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL (Ryan Ismert)
99: Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source (Alexander Terekhov)