On 8/3/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded,
the FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian
should re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
Why?
Personally, I've quoted this
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've got a fair point, in that RMS doesn't see his arguments as
preaching economic superiority; and certainly many commentators have
contrasted RMS's ethical perspective with, say, ESR's economic
perspective. I don't entirely agree with
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't
exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe
communication between people -- that it's
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
cash flows involved are not
On 7/30/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/30/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I count four issues the judge considered, with a bit of detail on each
of those issues.
I didn't say six issues. I said six reasons why it would be
inappropriate to grant
On 7/28/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strawman?
Fact: the creation of a derivative work is the application of some
transformation
on the original work.
The above snippet (which isn't even copyrightable, for its sheer size and the
necessity of expressing the
GPL violators appear to face several potential penalties:
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Potential penalties are irrelevant to my question. You assume a
priori that such linking is a violation of the GPL. My question was
why that assumption is valid. As I explained
On 7/28/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only good answer people in d-l gave me to the question:
why is the assumption that such linking is a violation of the
GPL valid? is because Eben Moglen said so in the GPL
FAQ, and he is a law teacher, so it must be true.
If
On 7/28/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that the point is that people would be going to jail for
violating the GPL.
Violating the GPL doesn't mean anything.
Yes it does -- it means actions in the context
On 7/28/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the stop
distribution penalty was not used in part because Progress
didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed
On 7/28/05, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]:
On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer to approach this issue from a different direction.
The point behind the DFSG is that we need to be able to solve problems
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What statute or case law supports this position? Comparison to
Grokster et al doesn't hold, for reasons that should have been
obvious: The GPL explicitly allows a user to use and modify code in
any way the user sees appropriate; section 2
On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
printf(Hello\n);
return 0;
}
On 7/27/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether or not that agreement purports to bind a developer in ways
that copyright law does not, there are limits to what terms a court
will permit in a contract of adhesion.
Agreed.
Then again, the penalties I'd expect the court to
On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, I don't? I said that the other guidelines are *applicable* to
non-program works, and *should be applied* to non-program works -- not that,
as presently written, we are obliged to apply them to non-program works.
I'd prefer to approach
On 7/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/18/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/18/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you suggesting that the use of time - frequency domain mapping
On 7/19/05, Daniel James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Raul,
avoiding distribution of software to avoid potential
but as yet non-existent challenges
To describe patent lawsuits as a non-existent challenge seems a little
optimistic to me. If it were so, there would have been no point to
On 7/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're missing Arnoud's point. It's not math, it's an
application of math to the problem domain of message encryption. That
makes it statutory subject matter for patenting, which math as such is
not.
it is rather unclear here.
On 7/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK -- how about this: Fraunhofer, AFAICT, has not attempted to patent
any well-known technique of converting data from a time series to a
frequency spectrum, nor the idea of applying such a technique to music
compression, nor would they
On 7/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/18/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you suggesting that the use of time - frequency domain mapping
is not ostensibly covered by the presumptively valid patents?
If you want to know what I am suggesting, with regard
On 7/15/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/15/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I very carefully made a distinction between technology described by
the patents and patented technology in the message you're responding
to.
One example of technology where
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but nothing worth quibbling over. Obviously the GPL prohibits a pop-up which
cannot be removed by a later distributor. My only contention was that as a
distributor, if I wanted extra assurance that those I was distributing to saw
the GPL,
On 7/13/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's difficult to create JPEG image rendering software without using
technologies described by MP3 patents.
On 7/13/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So do tell us where MP3 patents fit -- what patents, which claims, and
what
On 7/12/05, Daniel James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to reports from free software developers, it's difficult to
create MP3 encoders without using technologies described by the
patents.
It's difficult to create JPEG image rendering software without using
technologies described by MP3
On 6/27/05, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If one is to assume the strictest outcome (in debian-legal style) while
still assuming that the content is not totally banned, one has to
assume that interactive image programs are banned from persons under 18
unless inspected and shown
It's not at all clear to me that we need to sublicense anything.
It's not at all clear to me that we need to have anything authorized.
It's not at all clear to me how our use of the term could reasonably
be seen as dilution of the Linux mark.
If people want to get this matter clarified,
On 6/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sooner or later Linus (or his delegate) will have to either 1) make
some effort to exert QA authority over the kernels that distros ship
under the mark Linux or 2) face the loss of his trademark, and
possibly the success of someone else
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 06:48:48AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
This is where I came in. (Threatened legal action against
userlinux -- http://www.userlinux.com/ -- if they didn't
pay license fees in recognition of oversight authority.)
On 6/18/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
On 6/17/05, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The userlinux project has been approached by the Linux Mark Institute
with a demand for money in order to make use of the Linux trademark.
Said demand would also apply to the Debian project. I believe their
terms to be non-DFSG-compliant. See
On 6/17/05, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Reading the LMI site, they're only requiring a license on
uses of Linux which are not labelling OS software.
Maybe you misread it. According to the license terms, AUTHORIZED
GOODS/SERVICES, including software, do require
On 6/13/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought I'd done rather well in responding politely to a polite
inquiry as to whether I might be a Tentacle of Evil. I think of
myself as representing forthright radicalism within the system, and if
you think about it you'll realize
On 6/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and just to remind you: I am pro-non-crack-smoking-GPL, and have
even been known to advocate that it be required as a matter of law
For the record, I am not at all comfortable with your characterization
of opinions different from your
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:52:38PM -0700, Raul Miller wrote:
You seem to be trying to talk about this in an impartial manner,
but as long as you talk in terms of minimizing all obstacles
you're not doing so.
On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL deliberately places
On 6/7/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:33:38PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 6/5/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No disagreement here (except the implication that non-free use is the
only goal--the goal is free use everywhere, and non-free
On 6/3/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mean that the problem is that permissive licenses don't serve the
goals of a copyleft? They're not supposed to. The goal (or at least
one very common goal) of permissive licenses is to encourage free use
of code, and it's understandable
On 5/27/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/27/05, Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's correct; and, with or without that dependency, OpenTTD
infringes the copyright on Transport Tycoon Deluxe under a mise en
scene theory, as discussed on debian-legal.
On 5/24/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True. Replace that non-sentence with:
By license, I mean the usage of the word in a copyright law context
-- i. e. (non-)exclusive copyright license, a term in a contract --
and not any statutory or judicially created defense such as
with some other points of
agreement. (Many of your statements are statement I agree
with if they're phrased as possibilities rather than in
always applicable to everything form -- that is, if they're
rephrased to assert existence rather than universality.)
On 5/21/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL
On 5/23/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll need to think about that some, but I think there are some obvious
points
you missed. (For example, that contract law can and will be used in
resolving ownership issues
case until you reminded me. I think my tendency to not
acknowledge points like that is one of my more annoying traits.
Sorry about that.
On 5/21/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I read it, it's saying unoriginal elements can't be copyrighted, and
that the system in question
One other thing I should note about the GPL reasoning in the
Progress v. MySQL case.
In her assessment that no harm was likely, the judge could have
been considering that Progress would be estopped from pursuing
infringement charges against people releasing derivatives of
Gemini under the GPL.
On 5/21/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/20/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is some question about whether Quagga+Net SNMP+libssl
is uncopyrightable.
No, there isn't. There's no selection and arrangement creative
expression there. It's
On 5/21/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While these categories are exemplary and can be bent to cover
previously uncontemplated forms of work, judges are quite aware that
they do so at their peril. If you think that sister circuits'
critiques of Rano v. Sipa Press are brutal,
On 5/21/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a general rule, those commands don't go figuring out where to
get the sources and download them for you. Nor are they specially
documented in the distributor's notes on the package.
I assure you ./configure and make are quite
On 5/21/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P. S. Well, at least one person thinks Raul's credibility is intact
despite his attempted justification of a foolish gamble on OpenTTD,
Or maybe he thinks that my credibility wasn't much to begin with.
You really shouldn't overgeneralize
On 5/21/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After looking at this for a bit, I'm thinking that Quagga is based on
libsnmp and that libsnmp is based on libssl.
Not in any copyright sense whatsoever. And what, every Perl script
On 5/21/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're talking about something different from what I'm talking
about. I'm talking about cases where the program as a whole
is granted special copyright protection beyond that of its individual
components. (That's a literal
On 5/21/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not in any copyright sense whatsoever. And what, every Perl script is
based on Perl? Every Lotus 1-2-3 macro is based on Lotus
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:38:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Which can occur if anyone redistributes any of the I_WANT_OPENSSL
debian packages.
According to you. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that such
binaries
On 5/20/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL 1, 2, and 3 apply to distributions in object or executable form.
GPL 1 and 2 apply to distributions in source code form. The GPL has
*clearly* and *intentionally* placed additional restrictions (given in
section 3) on binary
On 5/20/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stipulate, for the moment, that either the Program or any derivative
work under copyright law (candidate E) and a work containing the
Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications
and/or translated into another
(Note, I might come back to some of this later -- I need to
think about whether I want to bother raising some issues, among
other things --, but a few of these I have immediate questions or
comments about.)
On 5/20/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is some question about
On 5/20/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a paraphrase of candidate E, it's erroneous. The grammar, as I
read it, doesn't allow it to be anything else. But a licensee is
certainly welcome to argue for the presence of an ambiguity there if
they have some reason to prefer
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This absolute protection did not seem to protect Napster, nor did
the home recording act.
Despite their claims to the contrary, Napster's *primary function* was to
facilitate the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. That is
On 5/19/05, Nicholas Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The company in question is willing to negotiate terms for a trademark
license that is agreeable to all parties. Obviously any advertising or
guarantee restrictions are unacceptable to us. Unlimited use of the
trademark is unacceptable to
On 5/19/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
it should be legal to name it driver for X. (Of course, what is legal and
what keeps
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No matter what the court ruled about Napster's CD ripping/copying ability,
that's not what they originally got in trouble for. They got in trouble for
making it easy for people to trade MP3's, by maintaining a repository of
illegal music
In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder,
and didn't even have have license.
That doesn't seem very interesting.
--
Raul
Distribute does not mean bits on the wire.
It means something more like make available, though it also has
implications of releasing control.
http://google.com/search?q=define%3Adistribute
--
Raul
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather
than the reasoning that they contain.
Actually, I made the (perhaps false) assumption that you had
quoted the
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the FSF FAQ.
For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false.
It is, in places, a bit
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's *flagrant* facilitation of
copyright infringement.
Yes. Note that there was a senator who thought that the laws which
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyways, I've never advocated relying on the circulars
in place of the copyright act. I was just thinking that
the circulars explained some reasoning about the copyright
act that you seemed to be having difficulty with. This is
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:29:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This scope of license construction does not involve any fine
judgments about whether the licensee's return performance is up to
snuff.
If the GPL is an offer of contract, the only remedy explicitly included
in the agreement is
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the
functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't
copyrightable in the first place.
Mise en scene, my friend, mise en scene.
We're not talking about
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite literally: the court didn't address the scope of
license issue.
Bullshit. Decision at http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/050800ruling.html ,
which I already pointed out to you
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're talking about something more like the Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.
v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. case.
So there are as wide a variety of games playable on the Transport
Tycoon Deluxe
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyways, I don't really care whether or not you can find a conflict
between some perhaps irrelevant text and the definition you've
asserted -- I want to see some citation that leads me to believe
that the distinction you've asserted
As usual, I don't know what your point is.
If I read you right, you're claiming that I mis-read my own question --
that I really wasn't asking for clarifcation on why you asserted that
the GPL is not a license.
If I read you right, you think that my citation of this case involving
colorization
On 5/18/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In source code form, yes, we do under sections 1 and 2 of the GPL. The
the source code for all modules it contains is part of section 3,
which doesn't matter when we're distributing source.
If distribute meant distribute in the form of
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL.
There are some exceptions to this. For example, if you're not the
On 5/18/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
If distribute meant distribute in the form of debian packages as
defined by the semantics of dpkg as opposed to distribute whatever
the mechanism, we'd be golden.
As long as we don't distribute GPL'd code linked
On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, let's clarify that. There is a particular legal use of the word
license, as in the phrase scope of the license, which refers
specifically to an individual provision in a contract that says what
rights the copyright holder (or, in
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think the appeals court asserted? I stand by my
statement: in the absence of a proper analysis of the scope of
license, the district court's judgment was wrong. And, I might add,
the district court, on re-hearing, dismissed
On 5/17/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do have a point, too. But in the specific case of TTD, could the
game engine be *really* generic? I don't really think so.
Maybe. But openttd is more generic than MicroStar's game mods.
MicroStar's game mods were designed and
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it = the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and
hence of 'work based on the Program'
And, hence, something that's licensed under the GPL.
I agree -- especially since it's the grant of license which is being
construed
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Actually, it's circularly bullshit. The scope of that license does
include the making and distribution of collective works, courtesy of
both the mere aggregation
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Up until a day or two ago I could chalk that up to difficulty with
reading comprehension, but the whole business with citing Sun v.
Microsoft as proof that some courts skip contract analysis, and then
refusing to acknowledge that he was
Then again, as an example of a copyright case where
contract law was held to be irrelevant, consider Huston v. La
Cinq Cass. civ. 1re (28 May 1991).
On 5/17/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, so a French court could claim jurisdiction over a case where a
modification is made
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But for future reference, if you think that something I have written
leads inexorably to the conclusion that Debian is prohibited from
distributing Sarge CD #1, you're probably misreading it -- except when
I express that fear myself, as I
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I claim that the GPL is not a contract.
I don't believe I'm disputing any claim you've made when
I say this, because near as I can tell you have never
actually asserted that the GPL is a contract. The closest
you've come seems to
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a reminder: I favor the use of the non-crack-smoking GPL on a much
broader basis than it is used today. I would like to see all open
source projects, FSF and otherwise, relicensed exclusively under the
GPL so that we can roll up our
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is an offer of contract, no more and no less.
Ok... if you offer me the GPL as a contract, and I
accept, at that point the GPL is not the whole of the
contract but it's more than an offer. So I'm already
losing track of your
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd infringes
the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction that recognizes
the doctrine of mise en scene, i. e., pretty much any jurisdiction
that has a copyright law. See
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the artwork (if included) would be literally infringing. The
mise en scene doctrine is not about literal copying, it's about the
creation of sequels (parodies, clones, etc.) that plagiarize the
original work and siphon off the
So where is the plagarism? How does your siphon off the
commercial potential work in this case?
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you like the very paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen?
...
radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It lets you play the original. In concept, it could let you play a sequel.
Or, it could let you play an entirely different game. But no one has
presented any reason to think that openttd represents a sequel.
Have you read any of the
On 5/15/05, Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am making Debian packages of openttd and am thinking of getting them
uploaded into Debian. Though it is licensed under GPL, I was wondering in what
section it belongs.
There are two reasons for this.
First, openttd is non-working on
I wrote:
Also, unless openttd includes design features which are clearly unique
content, the original publishers probably won't have any legal grounds
I meant, and should have said ... which are clearly unique content of
the publishers of the original game...
Obviously, openttd's authors have
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what? A user building a package locally has nothing to do with us. If he
violates the license by distributing said binaries, he is liable, not us.
This isn't nothing to do with us. We've done practically all the work
needed for the user to
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, so what? How is building the package locally equivalent to
infringement?
Why did Napster decide to offer a billion dollars to the
recording industry, to settle their copyright suit?
Do you think they were just smoking crack?
Unlike us,
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
pieces individually. But we sometimes don't distribute the work
is not equivalent to we do not distribute the work.
And yet somehow this work can get on the user's
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you account for it getting onto user machines?
I'm done here.
That's fine.
You are obviously more interested in trolling
or spreading FUD than having a conversation.
That's not.
--
Raul
On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are other specific statements which you found to be
insulting, please do let me know; it's possible that I have said
something else comparable to behest of the FSF for which a similar
apology is due.
Thanks, but I'll take the
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oferchrissake. Existing case law with respect to copyright _licenses_
is always, always, always based on contract law (in the US, anyway).
Would you do me the courtesy of at least correctly stating the
argument that you are attempting to
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You inverted the do more and do less. Publishing an arbitrary set of
anthologies is do more as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute permission to
On 5/12/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute permission to distribute binaries. The principle
under Brazilian law seems to be that restrictions on distribution of
sources
Just in case anyone was worried about this issue:
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it should be possible to treat the GPL as if an implicit contract
had been signed, and proceed from there, and the damages inflicted
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Federal copyright law presumes irreparable harm from the
infringement of a copyright. See Cadence Design Systems,
125 F.3d at 826-27.
Exactly.
--
Raul
101 - 200 of 1213 matches
Mail list logo
