On 15 Dec 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95
or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes
a violation of
Brian Behlendorf writes:
On 15 Dec 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95
or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use
Seth David Schoen wrote a lot of interesting things, which raise some
questions.
Let's take a whirlwind tour through the portions of the GPL which talk
about its applicability in order to see why this is so.
You don't get to modify the GPL:
Everyone is permitted to copy and
Jeff Teunissen wrote
Henning Makholm wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new
copies.
That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his
mind, we lose the right to make and
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
But that particular issue is moot as far as this license goes. Since this
license does not even _attempt_ to modify the GPL, the interpretation of
the GPL is very clear and unambiguous: just as Brian says, the GPL forbids
this sort of thing (in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his
mind, we lose the right to make and distribute new modifications:
I might still have the right to make one modified copy of the
Marc van Leeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But this is not just an exercise for the lawyers; it means for
instance that Debian should immediately stop distributing remind,
even in non-free, since they obviously lack the right to do that!
That reasoning is plain wrong. OBVIOUSLY the author
On 16 Dec 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
The license contained in the copy is just bits. Can bits make legal
promises in American law? They certainly can't over here.
In effect, the license contained in the copy is a recording of a
statement the author made once in the past. Since that
Henning Makholm wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
But that particular issue is moot as far as this license goes. Since this
license does not even _attempt_ to modify the GPL, the interpretation of
the GPL is very clear and unambiguous: just as Brian says, the GPL
Marc van Leeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, one may not amend the GPL, whatever this means exactly
Who says that? The GPL says so, but that is only relevant in
situations where the GPL has anything to say.
Second the remind copyright notice explicitly references the GPL, without
any
first, IANAL, but I had one semester of business law. Most of business law
deals with contracts. Consideration does not have to be money. Example from
class: I contract with you that, if you don't drink for a year, I will give you
a ski trip. Now, did i recieve consideration? Yes, because
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In terms of the GPL, the consideration I have always used is that I
gain the knowledge of any modifications you make, if you provide the
software to anyone.
The GPL does not contain any if you distribute to anyone you must
distribute to the author clause.
Such a
What I meant was, that if someone distributes their changes outside their
organization, they must also distribute (or make available) the source to those
they distribute to. They must also license the changes under the GPL. So, I as
the author could aquire the changes either from the person
The reason why the GPL does not allow changes is because of
the line or, at your option, any later version that appears in the
standard notice when an author puts a work under the GPL. It is
designed specifically to keep people from putting out a new version of
the GPL that might then
Henning Makholm writes:
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
But that particular issue is moot as far as this license goes. Since this
license does not even _attempt_ to modify the GPL, the interpretation of
the GPL is very clear and unambiguous: just as Brian says, the GPL
Henning Makholm writes:
Marc van Leeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But this is not just an exercise for the lawyers; it means for
instance that Debian should immediately stop distributing remind,
even in non-free, since they obviously lack the right to do that!
That reasoning is plain
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm writes:
That applies to works that have been licenses under the unamended GPL.
We're talking about a work which has *not* been licensed under the
unamended GPL. The uamended GPL has *no* force whatsoever on which
license terms
Previously Gergely Madarasz wrote:
(A note for debian-legal members, all the information which can be found
about webmin licensing is on the website, pasted here:
What licence is Webmin distributed under?
Following the acquisition of Webmin by Caldera, all past and
18 matches
Mail list logo
