On Apr 11, 2005 12:21 AM, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.P.S: Am I the only one that sees threads broken by Humberto's replies?
It seems that his MUA sometimes sets In-Reply-To: and References:
fields to the Resent-Message-ID: value of the message he's replying
to, rather than to
David Schwartz writes:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit
you to restrict
the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to
restrict the
distribution of lawfully created derivative works
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't
David Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first
place. See,
Henning Makholm wrote:
As far as I can see you are assuming that it is either a derived
work or mere aggregation, and cannot be both or neither. You then
That is because copyright law classifies them this way.
try to argue that because it is not a derived work, it must me a mere
aggregation. I
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative
work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with ld is
completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm
not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it
Michael Poole wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not
David Schwartz writes:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or
You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could
it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is
no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to
withhold from me.
Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright
holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can
cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't*
mention
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
This point is a controversial point. Different people make different
claims.
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, my question is, is it enough to quote the above in debian/copyright
for this to go into main, or will upstream need to release a new version
with the licencing clarified, or where to from here?
Quote the email from Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:47:46 +0200 when
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
(I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright law is not
phrased in terms of derived - or that have several native words
which are given different explicit meaning by the local law but would
all need to be represented as a
Ken Arromdee wrote:
If someone takes the Linux version, and modifies it to run under MSDOS again,
can they then distribute that? From this exchange it sounds like the answer
is no, which would disqualify it from being free software.
I disagree; the author specifically stated:
but if you want
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
(I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright law is not
phrased in terms of derived - or that have several native words
which are given different explicit meaning by the local law but would
all need to be represented as
Hello All:
I have encountered the following license in a Perl package:
(c) 2000 University of California, San Diego
Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute any part of this PDB
software for educational, research and non-profit purposes, without fee,
and without a
17 matches
Mail list logo
