On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 06:42:22PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
For example, consider the earlier condition in almost all open source
licenses that force the user to speak the license notice, the
disclaimer, etc.; consider clauses that requires the insertion of
trademark or patent notices;
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The linking issue is a whole other matter. I am saying there that an
end-user has, subject to and in compliance with the GPL license terms, a
wide right to modify on the end-user's computer.
I believe you're talking about fair use.
Does fair use apply
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:08:22PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
No, he is not talking about fair use. He is, I think, talking about
two things:
(1) The idea that compiling and linking a program is not restricted by
copyright; you don't need special permission to compile and link a
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(1) The idea that compiling and linking a program is not restricted by
copyright; you don't need special permission to compile and link a
program once you have obtained a copy of it.
But this is a confusion. In one sense it's true, but in another
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(1) The idea that compiling and linking a program is not restricted
by copyright; you don't need special permission to compile and link
a program once you have obtained a copy of it.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 09:03:58AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell,
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I don't think this is very relevant to the point I was
making.
Compiling and linking might or might not constitute copyright
violation, depending on the total context and the intentions of the
parties. Without knowing the total context
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:35:40PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
???
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0106/msg00143.html
I don't belong to the school that believes that everything is
forbidden unless explicitly permitted.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
It's not at
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(1) The idea that compiling and linking a program is not restricted by
copyright; you don't need special permission to compile and link a
program once you have obtained a copy of it.
But this is a
Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
On 26 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
then what is it?
It's the name of the operating system.
The operating system is
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One might, and one might be right. Remember, the US legal system is
based in the Social Contract theory, where the Government is given powers
by the people, not vice-versa. This means that if there isn't a law
specifically granting the Government power,
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
Ssh. This isn't your project, remember? If you want to join, join.
If you want to snipe from sidelines, go somewhere else.
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
Ssh. This isn't your project, remember? If you want to join, join.
If you want to snipe from sidelines, go somewhere else.
No, but it IS my response that
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Linking is not necessarily copyright violation, but if combined with
certain other acts, the whole thing, including all its parts, are an
instance of illegal copying. The total combination would indeed have
to be an act of copying, but it's quite
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One might, and one might be right. Remember, the US legal system is
based in the Social Contract theory, where the Government is given powers
by the people, not vice-versa. This means that if there isn't a law
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Linking is not necessarily copyright violation, but if combined with
certain other acts, the whole thing, including all its parts, are an
instance of illegal copying. The total combination would
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[The usual inane drivel]
John, go away.
This mailing list exists for the Debian project to discuss our own
legal issues, not for other people to try to work out ways to subvert
the GPL, or otherwise cheat us.
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So now this is a RICO case?! Complex acts usually involve Enterprise
corruption, which again has a different standard of proof. Unless you can
prove bad acts by all in the chain, forget a civil action on this one...
I didn't say anything about enterprise
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:39:02PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Actually, you can. So long as the final result stays in the possession
of the person who did the linking, this is not a COPYright issue, but
a property right issue. This is the epitome of fair use.
No.
Please read
Several topics come up here with some regularity, but which don't
belong here IMO. The name of the mailing list causes that confusion
understandably, but I think the situation would be improved by some
awareness and appropriate action.
The sorts of topics that are really not appropriate are
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So now this is a RICO case?! Complex acts usually involve Enterprise
corruption, which again has a different standard of proof. Unless you can
prove bad acts by all in the chain, forget a civil action on this
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, but you used language that only occurs in such cases (actually no, it
also occurs in most conspiracy theories, but the GPL is used IN quite a
few conspiracy theories) ((note: it's a plausible parallel: for what is
enterprise corruption but a conspiracy
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc.
- Original Message -
From: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Program
The proper interpretation of this area of the GPL is not on topic for
this mailing list.
Please take the discussion to somewhere where it belongs.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 09:41:50PM -0400, none wrote:
Actually I did not have fair use particularly in mind. Rather, I was
focused on this language from the GPL:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Program
You seem to
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc.
- Original Message -
From: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED];
debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:39
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just to clear up a possible misconception. The U.S. Copyright Act provides
that copying and creating derivative works are the exclusive rights of the
author. The most significant exceptions to those doctrines are fair use
and specific exemptions provided by the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 06:56:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Program
The proper interpretation of this area of the GPL is not on topic for
this
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Uh, you just posted half a dozen messages on roughly this topic to this
list, why is it suddenly off-topic when someone else does?
I should not have entered the discussion; it was always off topic. My
posts were too.
Did you read my longer post,
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, but you used language that only occurs in such cases (actually no, it
also occurs in most conspiracy theories, but the GPL is used IN quite a
few conspiracy theories) ((note: it's a plausible parallel: for
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I note you CC'd -legal about this even so Nice to see that you've
taken _Animal Farm_ to heart so... BTW, neither was your Murder allegory
on topic, yet it exists. Hypocrite.
As I said in a longer post, my own posts were also off topic, and I
should
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Combining
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:39:02PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Actually, you can. So long as the final result stays in the possession
of the person who did the linking, this is not a COPYright issue, but
a property right issue. This is the epitome of fair
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have trouble seeing how the separate distribution of A and B and then the
end-user combining them is infringement by either the distributor or the
end-user. Assuming that neither A nor B includes code from each other, then
A is not a derivative work of B nor
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where does title 17 mention property rights? In fact, this is a very good
example of why property rights trump copyrights.
This is not on topic for debian-legal. Please take it elsewhere.
[Unlike TB, I still think this is a relevant topic for debian-legal,
though I'm begining to agree with him that Chloe hasn't been paying
attention to the relevant concepts.]
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 10:18:04PM -0400, none wrote:
I have trouble seeing how the separate distribution of A and B and
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:34:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We have a case here of a work composed of two parts:
A) a gpl'd library
B) a main program with a gpl-incompatible license
The combined act of distributing A and B, with the intention to
combine them into A+B is the combined
This not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc.
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: none [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 07:22:56PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It sounds like your goal is to subvert the GPL, in which case you are
not our friend.
Speak for yourself. Speak for the FSF too, perhaps. But not for me.
If your goal is to try and figure out ways that bad
people might
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:40:45PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
What if Debian, White Knight of Free Software, distributes A (a GPLed
library) and obeys the GPL completely, and doesn't distribute anything
non-GPLed which links to it at all; but FooCorp, Evil Geniuses that they
are, makes an apt
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you will, my query/analysis has important implications to Debian and to
any other packagers. I am simply raising the issue that distributing A and B
separately (whether that be a GPL or a non-GPL library or any other code),
and not as a derived work, does not
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
BTW, just killfile Galt, you don't miss anything worthwhile and you do
miss a whole bunch of mindless nonsense. Even better, if he ever gets
the sense to start using a real name, he won't stay killfiled. It's win,
win, win, I say.
Yes, good
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc.
- Original Message -
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: none [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 07:22:56PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It sounds like your goal is to subvert the GPL, in which case you are
not our friend.
Speak for yourself. Speak for the FSF too, perhaps. But not for me.
I speak for free
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But note it applies only to a work that is distributed or published that
contains or is derived from the GPL code. If you recall the example, A and B
are separately distributed (not as a derivative work) and a derivative work
is created by the end-user but not
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 11:04:31PM -0400, none wrote:
I am not sure why I need too. I am assuming they are all complied with. The
only condition of significance is
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or
JESUS H CHRIST ON A POGO STICK WHAT is your major malfuction? It's
not good enough for you to start on your John Galt's not part of Debian
kick, but you now have to start on others?! I have some suggestions for
the horse you rode in on: I have serious doubts as to whether you're
physically
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 10:55:58PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:40:45PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
What if Debian, White Knight of Free Software, distributes A (a GPLed
library) and obeys the GPL completely, and doesn't distribute anything
non-GPLed which links to
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JESUS H CHRIST ON A POGO STICK WHAT is your major malfuction? It's
not good enough for you to start on your John Galt's not part of Debian
kick, but you now have to start on others?! I have some suggestions for
the horse you rode in on: I have
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
FooCorp doesn't do any linking with GPLed code in these
scenarios. Further, the linking is only done on the users machine, in
a manner explicitly allowed by the copyright holders of both pieces
of code (the GPL allows you to do pretty much whatever
49 matches
Mail list logo
