OK, that's all. Thanks for listening.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
Doom! Doom!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:04PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So the GR promotes a do what I mean, not what I say approach to
license interpretation for the GFDL -- it does *not* claim that the
literal reading of the DRM restriction is free.
But GRs don't get
to direct,
primary liability.
If that's what the developers meant, they should have said so.
I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, before the GRs; the hmm, wait,
isn't ftpmaster download access restricted? moment didn't come into my
head until today.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush
to this license:
[License notice 2]
Portions of this software copyright D 19xx, 19yy
These portions are subject to this license:
[License notice 3]
etc.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet
and back without trouble.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
.
In fact, this means that the only thing which *must* legally be included is
the copyright notice and that statement. The license does not require that
any particular text be included with the software, certainly not the export
control text.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted
stonewalling. So much of
this would be simpler if the FSF would fulfill their responsibility of
fixing their license, which they assumed when they begin proliferating
it.)
Oh my goodness yes.
This is why I don't give money to the FSF.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In response to a private mail from Hamish Moffatt, I realized that I did
not make clear my reasoning for some of the things I said in the recent
message Re: Antique RC bugs (many about licensing).
Why I read the GR as promoting a do what I mean philosophy:
The GFDL says: You may not use
not paying attention, because
the non-free logo has been removed from the binary. NMU?
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
to be in contrib.
I always felt that the line between main and contrib was especially fuzzy.
Personally, I care a lot more about the line between main/contrib and non-free.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet
(This is in reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED].Sorry about
the thread-breakingthought I should reply to this quickly rather than
waiting to get to a better computer.)
Frank Kuester wrote:
Are you sure? Isn't it the same as a program that contains in its
sources a binary blob that's copied
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Oh, it's possible, the section just ends up as unreadable garbage. Nothing
in
the GFDL requires that the invariant sections be readable.
Well, actually, its not because devices easily barf on things that
aren't ASCII.
And, further
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode:
I think this is overly broad. What about the following?
You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this
License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according
to applicable law. Such functionality includes
requiring that a modified work contain unreadable garbage
is a non-free restriction. But at least this is *possible*. :-)
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A thousand reasons. http://www.thousandreasons.org/
Lies, theft, war, kidnapping, torture, rape, murder...
Get me out of this fascist
personal interest in
promoting mountain climbing. There is a doctrine of copyright misuse, but
it's used very rarely and appears to be very narrow.
I don't know about civil law countries, but I'd love to know why you think it
isn't enforcable there.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Insert
under 1a directly or
indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions.
So, uh, was that a troll or what?
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Insert famous quote here]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
corporate residence better.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This space intentionally left blank.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the DFSG (and is practically extremely
annoying and obnoxious), even if some alternate clause requiring source
distribution (such as I suggested to the FSF) might be.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.) --Steve
under a
free license, and then distributing only in patch form (so that the
recipients never receive webplus.py as a single work)? No, that wouldn't
allow binary distribution.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org
things: this license is a copyleft; and
clause (d) applies if the Program as you received it satisfies certain
requirements. In contrast, clause (c) applies if the *modified* program
satisfies certain requirements.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Theocracy, fascism, or absolute monarchy
at that with the assistance of the people I know and a
little research.
I am not permitted to. Instead, RMS's outdated, inaccurate screed is stuck
there for all time.
This is really non-free.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's just a goddamned piece of paper.
-- President Bush, referring
, which I'm pretty sure qualifies as a fee.
It also bans you from suing them for *anything*, including totally unrelated
topics (say, they killed your cat), which is obviously non-free, and is even
worse than I've ever seen in a proprietary EULA.
Don't touch this monstrosity.
--
Nathanael Nerode
source unless they change it.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's just a goddamned piece of paper.
-- President Bush, referring to the US Constitution
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require
the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access
to that work. Accordingly, no program licensed under
Kerberos.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they operated in accordance with Debian. Debian-legal has
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when
it
applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against other
people.
It's free when it only applies to suits brought by other
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of Santa
Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is considered non-free by many
debian-legal contributors (including
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrrm. We need a different clause then.
No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work,
shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in
order to gain access to that work
authority* in order
to access. This is impossible because there is no mechanistic way to test
whether the information is being provided with copyright holder authority or
without it. No program can actually require copyright holder authority;
it's unimplementable.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the DMCA actually speaks about access to the work
(17 U.S.C. 1201):
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide,
or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological
protection
measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a
system
Glenn Maynard wrote:
No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse. The only
counterarguments I've ever seen are:
- code reuse isn't important (often thinly veiled as eg. you don't
really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it), and
- if you really want to reuse
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no idea why -legal isn't in the loop, but I figured if I gave y'all
a
heads up, you would be soon enough.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because it's -legal's job to interpret licenses, not the DFSG?
The -legal regulars are very likely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I´m trying to create a package [0] that has been licensed by Common Creative
Deeds
2.5 [1]. Would you be as kind as to tell me if this license is compatible
with DFSG?
For reference, you are referring specifically to the *Spanish* version of the
BY-SA license.
I
martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stumbled over this statement in an email from the KDE team to
-vote:
For the record, relicensing most of our documentation will be
impossible.
Not a can-do attitude.
There are several people with stated objections to using
the GPL
Discussions are ongoing on debian-kernel and debian-project with
intermittent Cc:s to debian-boot and debian-release. As usual, some people
are trying to allow binary-only executables for peripheral cards in main,
and other people are trying to move them to non-free. (No prizes for
guessing
. Supposedly there is a
secret committee of Debian people talking with the FSF about it, but we have
heard no news of progress. Meanwhile GNU documentation suffers because many
contributors (like me) will not contribute substantial work to
solely-GFDL-licensed documentation.
--
Nathanael Nerode
), and it would be nice if we could keep the
sed docs in Debian main.
Sincerely,
Nathanael Nerode
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Towns wrote:
(2.1) Invariant Sections
The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections
that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation
in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the
DFSG, which states:
Ian Jackson wrote:
Also,
(4) How can this be fixed?
This section should be clarified and strengthened. In particular, we
should encourage documentation authors to (at the moment) dual-licence
GDFL/GPL.
The recommendation is: License your documentation under the same license
as the
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit on why you think the verbatim copy only is
problematic?
It renders the license text non-free.
The classic use case is the following: If at some point new people at SIL
want to make a revised version of the license, it will be technically
-encumbered code in the .diff.gz
Obviously we would prefer (2) for reasons of policy and practicality.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.) --Steve Lanagasek,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056
What do you suppose require refers to, in require the use of (SC#1), if
not require the use of [in order to be useful]?
The problem lies in the definition of useful, which varies from person
to person.
We've had this argument before. Someone claimed that drivers that require
non-free
,
any replies will have to come from individual email adresses anyway, so
everyone involved should sign up too
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A thousand reasons. http://www.thousandreasons.org/
Lies, theft, war, kidnapping, torture, rape, murder...
Get me out of this fascist nightmare
).
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A thousand reasons. http://www.thousandreasons.org/
Lies, theft, war, kidnapping, torture, rape, murder...
Get me out of this fascist nightmare!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe this subject was discussed before, but I'd like some
clarification. The GNU Ada compiler (GNAT) from FSF is distributed
under GPL with this special linking exception:
As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this
unit, or you link this unit with other files to
Iwould also rethink the use of
e.g. which most closely means 'that is'.
Wrong. 'i.e.' stands for 'id est', which means
'that is'.
'e.g.' is correct for introducing an example.
However, given the number of
people who don't know the difference :-), "for
example" is better.
This specifically implies,
for instance, that unauthorized redistributed modified
works must not [...]
unauthorized makes me think of license violations. That's not what we're
talking about here
Try this:
This specifically implies,
for instance, that redistributed
posted mailed
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my proposed legal license,
That means the IETF
posted mailed
Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Hi folks,
Please tell us what you think of the Open Font License.
All the details are available at:
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
This page includes a FAQ and other docs explaining the rationale behind
the license, what we want to achieve by
to remember to, but it's a good idea.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francisco Poli wrote:
I agree on everything you said, with the following comments/questions:
* why do you suggest repeating program name everywhere?
Ah. The reason I did that was so that it would be suitable to print out
and have the company lawyers or executives sign.
I think it
makes
(you)
)
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Insert famous quote here]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-friendly license of
your choice.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This space intentionally left blank.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
I would like to hear your advice about a pseudo-licence I wrote myself.
Its text is located at http://fr.ekopedia.org/Nouvelle_licence .
snip
article 9 adds the right to include any part of the document in
any document distributed under the GPL, and to redistribute
Justin Pryzby wrote:
Package: dh-make
Version: 0.40
Severity: important
File: debian/copyright
The problem is with the template ./debian/copyright files created by
/usr/bin/dh_make, not /u/s/d/dh-make/copyright.
I'm Cc: debian-legal, and I checked the BTS documentation so its going
to
Francesco Poli wrote:
OK, let's concentrate on version 3.0 of the PHP license, then.
The only issue that I see in PHP license version 3.0 *as applied to PHP
itself* is:
| 4. Products derived from this software may not be called PHP, nor
| may PHP appear in their name, without
Francesco Poli wrote:
If I understand correctly, you are saying that one can
* purge the Zend Engine from PHP+ZendEngine (which are under the PHP
License)
* take the Zend Engine as distributed by Zend (that is to say, under
the Zend License)
Actually, according to the PHP license
Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 11:16:14AM -0500, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
Quoting Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Package: kfreebsd-5
Severity: normal
The following lines are printed by kFreeBSD when boot starts:
Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project.
posted mailed
Martin Koegler wrote:
The newer MySQL client libraries are GPL (with the FLOSS exception),
older versions were LGPL.
At http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/licensing-notice.html
MySQL has put a descrption of their network protocol, where they
force programs using this
posted mailed
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
Hi Francesco!
You wrote:
A less difficult solution is avoiding copyright assignements and simply
asking for a license change: each copyright holder should be tracked,
contacted and asked to agree with the relicensing.
I'm afraid that this will turn
to find a *1988 or earlier*
publication of the work by the author. A good thing to find. :-)
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This space intentionally left blank.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
posted mailed
Tommi Vainikainen wrote:
Hello members of debian-legal,
It isn't currently well known that Debian website's license is Open
Publication License, which has been judged to be non-free, and
therefore needs to be changed.
We know. ;-)
Currently web pages are Copyright ©
Ralf Stubner wrote:
I digged into groups.google.com and found the original press release:
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.windows.x/browse_thread/thread/d351921a604a4039/a3e406813544b498
Mountain View, Calif. (October 9, 1991) - Adobe Systems Incorporated today
announced it has donated
Daniel Stone wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0200, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
Daniel == Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
Maybe it is sufficient to find someone at X.org who is willing to care
about the legal stuff. It is a great advantage that Thanh found
someone at
Francesco Poli wrote:
The Zend Engine is licensed to the
PHP Association (pursuant to a grant from Zend that can be
found at http://www.php.net/license/ZendGrant/) for
distribution to you under this license agreement, only as a
part of PHP. In the event that you
Joey Hess wrote:
Hector Blanco wrote:
My name is Hector Blanco.
I developed a game called 'Debian vs Pimientos' in which you
have to kill peppers, using the Debian logo as a ship.
Well, more info is here:
http://www.neopontec.com/en/games/index.php?sec=gamegid=1
Some persons commented me
copyright statement
-- BSD license
-- separate statement (described above) requesting credit in scientific or
academic publications
And if they actually have patents, come back to debian-legal.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Insert famous quote here]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
is distributed under the GNU GPL license.
Thank you.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for similar issues:
http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?func=detailitemitem_id=4303
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This space intentionally left blank.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in their personal pages
instead, but (a) that would have to be enforced, (b) those licenses would
have to be checked for DFSG-freeness, and (c) license compatibility would
have to be checked before every edit. That makes that seem to be a totally
unreasonable option.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL
of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of
California, with venue in San Francisco County, California, and You and GIPS
hereby consent to personal jurisdiction and venue therein with respect to
this License.
Unacceptable. No way I'm travelling to San Fransisco if they sue me.
--
Nathanael
are acceptable; we do not accept them if an official
identity of the sort which can be used to find the author's home address is
required. I think that's pretty clear-cut; it's the licenses which are
vague. :-P
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A thousand reasons. http://www.thousandreasons.org
was in the US, etc., and he didn't add a
copyright notice on his behalf), then his contributions are public domain.
Probably it will turn out he added something in 1988 or later, of course.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest
M J Ray wrote:
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] It has long been
held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a
cassette tape from a cd).
Maybe you've just worded this badly, or maybe you're relying on
some specific place's laws, but my private copying is
Marco D'Itri wrote:
I do, and I stand by my opinion: the package license is intended to be
applied to everything, and pretending otherwise is useless pedantry.
Modern copyright law, unfortunately, demands pedantry. If you think it's
useless, that's your opinion, but as far as I can tell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I've just been through the ntp source tree looking at all the
copyright and license assertions. Executive summary is that there are
indeed some problems, but it's not bad, and I believe it can be fixed
with an upload that elides certain bits from the upstream
Marco D'Itri wrote:
No, maybe it's you who do not understand english, or probably just like
armchair lawyering.
Please stop being rude when you're wrong.
You apparenly don't understand the difference between a license and a
copyright notice. Actually, it's
quite possible the authors of NTP
not very maintained anyhow,
having multiple RC bugs open for quite a while.
Ick.
--
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This space intentionally left blank.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that the Elektrostore
swirl is independently created starting from a straight brush stroke.
Now, Debian really ought to be complaining about
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
a self-selected crew of ideologues with brazen contempt
for real-world law and no fiduciary relationship to anyone is not too
swift -- whether or not they have law degrees (or university chairs in
law and legal history). Not all debian-legal participants deserve to
be
Henning Makholm wrote:
On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that the Elektrostore
swirl is independently created starting from a straight brush stroke.
http://henning.makholm.net/debian/swirls.xcf is the logo bar from
www.elektrostore.se, with a genuine Debian swirl in another layer -
Francesco Poli wrote:
Version 2.5 licenses feature *some* little improvements, but they do not
solve, AFAICT, all the issues that were found out in 2.0 ones.
However, the problem is well in hand. Debian is working with the CC people on
a draft
new version (3.0?) and it appears that there
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I see your weasel-words and raise you horse-pucky. You are
impugning the intelligence and integrity of a whole class of dedicated
public servants, whose actions are subject to more public scrutiny
that any other branch of government, on pure hearsay. Tell me what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me the distinction is clear: you have to add something to the
algorithm before you arrive at patentable matter. You apparently
consider the addition (a computing device with a memory) to be
irrelevant, and hence you don't see a distinction.
The addition should be
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If you provide the program loaded into a computer, ready to execute,
then the court may likely hold that you infringe. If you publish
a printed piece of paper with the program's source, then you likely
do not infringe.
Like I said somewhere, non-tech-savvy judges
Michael Edwards wrote:
Dualism is on the retreat,
processes and machines are on an equal footing, and what makes
something not an abstract idea as such is that it be susceptible of
industrial application to reliably achieve a particular useful
result.
In practice, that's another distinction
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, when I found that (some of) the graphics had a source from which
they
could be compiled, I concluded two things:
- To satisfy the GPL, the source for those graphics needs to be distributed
as
well, so it must be in the source package.
Probably correct.
Andreas Barth wrote:
Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main.
Read TrueType instructions and say that again! Some fonts are most
certainly programs.
PDFs are arguably executables designed for a PDF interpreter.
But let's not get into that again right now.
--
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that documentation currently in main that uses the OPL could be
salvaged if we can convince the controlling body for the OPL to upgrade to a
version that's compatible with the DFSG. I have not, however, examined the
OPL carefully enough to determine if this is
Sean Kellogg wrote:
There is no such thing as software that isn't copyrighted.
He means software written after 1988, of course.
All original
expression that is fixed in a tangible form is immediately copyrighted (at
least, that's the U.S. rule).
Since the passage of the Berne Convention
On Saturday 23 July 2005 04:41 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:03:56 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
Anyone else have thoughts?
Yes, I have one:
|3. The licensee agrees to obey all U.S. Government res- trictions
|governing redistribution or export of the software
OK. Problems found. Please forward these to the appropriate authority, since
I couldn't work out how to.
Distribution requirements require the provision of way too much information
about the licensor. Geographic and electronic address? Come on.
Geographic address is a matter of privacy,
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Patent is not copyright; you don't obtain a monopoly on describing
your method, you obtain a monopoly on its commercial application. No
patent prohibits you from making a computer program implementing any
algorithm you like; but if you sell it as a solution to the
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I agree with you that the distinction may seem artificial. But it
does seem logical to me to say you can't patent A XOR B but you can
patent a computer program that does that.
If you can patent the class of computer programs which do A XOR B,
you have patented the abstract
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I don't know of any caselaw in any European country in the past ten
years that says This European patent is invalid because it's a
computer program as such.
That's not the caselaw you're looking for.
The caselaw you're looking for is This European patent is invalid
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The Federal
Circuit, en banc, characterized one defendant's reliance on a similar
statistic (offered by their counsel and apparently relied on in good
faith to the extent that that means anything) as flagrant disregard
of presumptively valid patents without
101 - 200 of 720 matches
Mail list logo
