On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I don't
think so.
#include stdio.h
int main(int, char**) {
puts(Hi); return 0;
}
What is a dynamically
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All copyright _licenses_ (in the US, anyway) are terms in contracts.
This does seem to be your main thesis.
You have not provided any reason to believe that this generalization
must hold in all cases.
Instead, you've been using the full
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will do my repeated assertion act: It's a dynamically linked
executable, for the love of $DEITY!
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative effort that went
into
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative effort that went
into them is the selection and arrangement of their contents.
DY-NA-MI-CA-LLY
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This doesn't do anything for the distributor of copyright infringing
software. 17 USC 117 only protects users of that software.
Stipulate that, _contrary_to_law_, we read mere aggregation to mean
_only_ on storage media and _only_ at
Just to clear the air, here's some mistakes I'm aware of making today:
(1) I thought the Progress Software v. MySQL case was still pending.
While I've not found a formal statement to this effect, I've since
read that the case settled out of court.
(2) I incorrectly assumed that the gender of
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.a. it specifies (art. 7, XII) that computer programs are protected by
copyrights.
2.b. it further specifies (art. 7 § 1) that computer programs have
specific legal provisions (all contained, nowadays, in our Computer
Programs Law [Lei
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Switching sides again, if someone asserted that the mere
aggregation clause applied, and used program behavior to make that
assertion, and I believed that mere aggregation did not apply, I
would show how the program
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Once again: if Section 0 does not apply, then the GPL does not apply,
and therefore the GPL can't grant you license to copy that work.
Ok... are you arguing that you *still* have to comply to the license of
the non-GPLd
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. Binaries are the same work as (the anthology of) their sources, in
the eye of the Law 9609/98.
If I understand you correctly, this means that under Brazilian law
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I'm not going to say that your point of view isn't perfectly valid
as your own point of view; but I don't have any reason to believe that
it's a good predictor of how a court case involving the FSF suing
FooSoft for linking against GNU
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with your wish, with respect to certain of my works.
Unfortunately, under 17 USC, the only way to avoid transfer of my
termination interest in copyright assignments and licenses is for my
work to have been a work made for hire.
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, the termination is not for 35 years after the grant.
And, in the case of the GPL, everyone gets an independent
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The law as written says that you do not have permission to copy
except as granted by a license. Thus the GPL's license grant
is not only applicable, it's the issue which is most likely
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL does not grant the right to sublicense.
Section 6's grant does not depend on an agent having a valid
license.
Horse, pulp, etc. I'll even point you at a message where I made
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stand by my man, straw or otherwise. In any given jurisdiction
there are rather clear rules about how to extract meaning from the
available evidence of a contract between two parties (or more, if it's
a contract to form a corporation;
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The drafter of this offer of contract has shouted from the rooftops
that he has made no attempt to conform it with the applicable law.
You make it sound like RMS is attempting civil disobedience.
As I understand it, he's attempting to
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
Most of this is focused on contract law issues. I've written a
separate post suggesting the obvious alternative (Tort law)
Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license to
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
This is part of the definition. You cut it off before the end of the
sentence.
This is disputed.
You claim you did not cut it off before the end of the sentence?
And you know that. I have already presented a lot
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
That's another re-statement of what a work based on the Program
means.
The GPL just equated the two, before the colon! It states, clearly, that
the a work based on the program is a derivative work under copyright
law
On 5/10/05, Batist Paklons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/05/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, these two categories are not disjoint.
I do not believe this to be a contradiction. Collective works and
derivative works are two entirely different concepts in copyright
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
17 USC 101: A derivative work is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works
how much plainer do you need this t
I'm asserting that copyrightable collective works are derivatives
of the contained works. Can you
On 5/10/05, Batist Paklons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/05/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's very clear that what copyright is protecting is not the symbols which
comprise a document but the creative content that they represent.
This could be different in common law copyright
Raul Miller wrote:
And, if you allow the full definition of a work based on the Program
from section 0 of the GPL to apply, it's clear that when these
collective works are being protected as intellectual creations that
you're talking about a work based on the Program and so can
be granted
On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
is clearly non-free *without* any such stretching or contriving.
I don't think the issue at that
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/8/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only time a collective work is not a derivative work is when the
the collective work lacks sufficient originality under copyright law
to be granted separate copyright protection
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Succinctly describing the flaw:
1. '' a work based on the Program means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law '' -- this is a definition. It
defines what the expression work based on the Program means
throughout the
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on, Raul: a collective work is NEVER a derivative work. Never ever
ever.
What's this? Proof by repeated assertion?
A collective work CONTAINS another works, and is copyrightable per se if
it is intelectually novel by virtue of its
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that a work based on the Program is a derivative work under
copyright law, and then says that is to say, a work
containing..., which is NOT a re-statement of a derivative work
I want to revisit this one point.
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not true under the Berne Convention or under 17 USC as I read
them; indeed, the term collective works and its superset
compilations appear to be explicitly reserved in 17 USC 101 (1976
and later)
On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/7/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
definition
a work based on the Program means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law
/definition
I
On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As written, the mere aggregation clause, if it has any legal
significance at all, applies only to Section 2.
Section 2 is the section which grants permission to distribute
copies of the program which are not verbatim, and which places
On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, Raul, I'm impressed. You have found enough ambiguities in
the GPL to exhibit a way to construe limits on dynamic linking and
packaging dependencies that are not far from the FSF FAQ's
prescriptions and Debian's current practices
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you're objecting to the that is to say phrase, which
restates what
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/7/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this attempts to quip is meaningless.
How would you like me to say
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh Lord. Deep breath. Please, please, please read to the end of this
one before responding to each line on the fly.
Done.
The GPL contains one, and only one, _definition_ of the phrase work
based on the Program. (The word Program,
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this sorry-ness is not
something that matters
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Second sentence in Section 0: The Program, below, refers to any
such program or work, and a work based on the Program
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:44:04PM +0400, Olleg Samoylov wrote:
But. You must undestand and keep in mind. For normal people (not
specialized in freedom) things, such as putting gnu-standarts to
non-free, always looked very strange (said softly).
Keep in mind that normal people can install
The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Interestingly enough, neither [1] nor [2] mention linking. Which makes
sense since the conditions they describe hold both before and after
linking.
[1]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 04:27:08PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
wording of the definition is unfortunate, and needs work, but the real
question is, would any sane person or court really consider a work
that cites another work to be a modified version of the original work?
If the work that cites
What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed
to see the EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:21:42PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
It is enforcable and is called a rolling contract. Seminal case is ProCD,
Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Circut, 1996).
That
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together
is not protected by copyright: the
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 07:45:26PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Also, doxygen, for generating standalone documentation from inline docs.
I think this is a critical example, since it's specific, and a lot of
people actually use it (google for it to see just how many).
This is basically the same
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance,
which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no
contract, no exceptions.
False.
For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance,
no contract, no exceptions.
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 06:55 am, Raul Miller wrote
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
US copyright italian author's right (diritto d'autore italiano)
--
compilation work --- collective work (opera collettiva)
derivative work
[2] I don't think you can construe this paraphrase of the GPL authors
claims as meaning that a person using that grant is free to ignore the
conditions imposed by the GPL.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:49:44PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean hear... but I do know that
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses
a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No, I would not.
Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not
creative.
The
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the
agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before
purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:57:29AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
The law talks about collective
works and derivative works, and to a casual reader it appears as
though collective works are in some way different from derivative
works.
Why?
Are collective works and derivative works the
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.
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
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a one
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted
in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can
be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel.
I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
If you believe the linker merely aggregates the object code for the
driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
you separate the
On Apr 04, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is waiting for NEW processing, but i also believe that the dubious
copyright assignement will not allow the ftp-masters to let it pass
into the archive, since it *IS* a GPL violation, and thus i am doing
this in order to solve that problem.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:35:10AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote:
I was reading through the Terms Conditions[1] (henceforth Terms page)
on the and I am not sure that it conforms to the DFSG, specifically
section 3. If you look at the Terms page, you will notice that the
section on Extending and
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:17:51PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Thanks for mentioning command lines. Running a program from the
command line, usually involves passing it options. These options are
(obviously) copies of strings from the actual program. Can this
copying be a copyright
Those .h files were held to be not protected by copyright because no
viable alternatives were available to interface with the system.
It's hard to see how this reasoning would apply in a context where there
is some viable alternative available to interface with the system.
On Wed, Mar
in .h files in c++ based
projects, are those defining interfaces, deeming them uncopyrightable
by current USofAn and Brazilian law. Better?
Raul Miller wrote:
However, for U.S. law, this isn't necessarily the case.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 04:14:47PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
I was referring
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Troll editing. My claim was: *Basically*, bits in .h files are not
copyrightable. Which I now solemnly amend to The kind of bits you
normally (99% of the times) find in .h files in c-language based
projects, and often (50% of
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:16:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
This seems to imply that there's some single perspective which can be
easily described to clarify this issue.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I was asking for Andrew's perspective
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:55:40AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
'Worse' is purely a matter of perspective. There's irony here...
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 05:31:27AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No, there isn't. It's very simple. You called it a perversion,
which means you think it's worse.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:56:49AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Whoa, slow down, cowboy! Re-read what I have written up there: .h
_bits_ are not copyrightable. Now take a deep breath. The thing is: it
is considered by USofA and other countries case law that the bits that
are at compile/link
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 06:17:56AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
After a quick search to try and find if the FSF ever
voiced an opinion on nv, I unfortunately only dug out
the well-known case against NVidia's binary kernel
module.
Will any of the X nVidia support work without that binary kernel
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 09:26:18PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Of course, how else are people going to notice all the contemptible things?
Given that there's an effectively infinite supply of worthless, useless
and irrelevant things to express contempt at, I'd guess that people will
never
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Can this list PLEASE stop the belief that ducking your head in the
sand in regard to patent violations saves you from increased liability?
What would that achieve?
I don't think that we ignore patents because we believe that in
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:18:56PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
You have made a very convincing argument that required to install is
too broad. My criteria is required to run.
If you're talking about the scope of copyright law, or the relevance of
the license granted by the GPL, you're talking
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:21:32PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
This is not a criticism of Eric - as Firefox package maintainer, his
opinion is clearly important. But is this sort of thing merely something
one has to accept when dealing with Debian, or is there anyone in
authority who can
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
...
This isn't really the right forum for that.
Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
If the
GPLed work is separate from other works under copyright law, it
doesn't contaminate them at this point.
Walter Landry wrote:
This is wishful thinking. The paragraphs after GPL 2c clearly cover
collective works.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:02:19AM +, Lewis Jardine wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 12:47:21PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Good luck proving your replacement isn't a derived work after you've
studied the GPLed work you are replacing.
Actually, he has a point there. There has to be significantly more going
on than read the GPLed work for some other work
You and Brian keep on claiming that. Do you actually have anything
solid on which to base this assertion?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:56:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
The GPL mentions whole works, and I have given my criteria of a whole
work: Requires to run.
Both of these statements are
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 07:44:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Any given country's implementation of the Berne Convention may vary
somewhat, but the US statute (at least as of 1986) and the case law I
have seen are consistent with the interpretation that compilations
(or the subset
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:56:25PM -0500, I wrote:
The Berne Convention does not appear to use the term derivative
at all. The only place I can find that uses related worde
(derived, and collection) is Article 14 and 14ter, in reference
to (derived) cinematographic production based on other
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:18:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
If the public benefit of interoperability outweighs the harm done to a
copyright holder by permitting competitive use of the interface they
created, how can it not outweigh the harm to him of permitting
cooperative use?
Why
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:18:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I do want my government and my cellphone to run on Free Software,
and neither will happen in my lifetime if there isn't a commercially
viable transition strategy.
If you want to work towards a situation where everything is
First: There is no such legal entity as Debian which is doing such
things. Debian is a trademark of SPI, and there are people who use
that trademark, but that's not the same thing.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:55:30PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
You can replace Debian with SPI if it makes
Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic,
Eclipse is not a part of Kaffe.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:56:34PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
You missed the part about Eclipse requiring Kaffe to run.
The license on Eclipse doesn't make an issue of this.
The license on Kaffe
Why assume that interoperability is the only benefit from release under
copyleft?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:45:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I'm not assuming that. I'm saying that the public benefit of
interoperability, used in a number of the decisions that I've cited to
justify
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:38:19AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you could address all your company's
concerns by licensing the headers and build files needed to compile your
libraries under BSD (or maybe LGPL) and license the rest of your content
under GPL
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:38:19 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because all public interfaces is too general a concept.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:03:57PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Too general for what?
That is indeed a good question.
Once we settle what it is that we're
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:09:58PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Great. Except either this interpretation isn't part of the contract,
and therefore doesn't bind other contributors, or else I've created
another little almost-GPL fiefdom, and any bit of code that turns out
to have been
Section 2 is about the restrictions which come into play when you
build a modified form of Kaffe, which is not the case for Eclipse.
Eclipse involves no modifications of Kaffe.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:50:17PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Debian modifies Kaffe and distributes Eclipse with
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
The GPL puts restrictions on whole works.
True.
Requires to run is a useful heuristic to determine what a whole
work is.
Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic,
Eclipse is not a part of Kaffe.
If you have
In other words: derivative works include mere aggregation.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:57:29PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
As a point of law, derivative works are not a superset of mere
aggregation in the US, and I suspect not in other jursidictions. 17
USC 101 requires that a derivative
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:41:02PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I'm focusing on a simple case. Pre-existing GPL library, shipped
unaltered, or with any bug fixes and enhancements contributed
upstream. New application (PEOTL) written to use the library.
Tested and shipped together, with
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the
interpreter at all.
If the interpreted program and the interpreter can't communicate, then
usually
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:50:58PM +, Andres Baravalle wrote:
I suppose that it would mean excluding *all* the syndicated comics
(dilbert, calvin and hobbes etc.). They cover 2/3 of the comics.
They will not give me an explicit permission, but I'd like to know if
I'm doing anything wrong
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:51:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
We seem to be talking past one another. Maybe it's just that I'm
implicitly assuming a separation between library source code and
program source code, and saying that the latter is only a derivative
work of the former if it
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:17:11AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Agreed. But use of a brand name to attempt to stop other people from
giving away the same thing you do under the same name is a bit of a
novelty.
Advertisers have been doing this for years, as have broadcasters.
[There's
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:38:40AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The exec() boundary is bogus. The interpreter waffle is bogus. The
LGPL exemption is bogus. The syscall exemption is bogus. The
Classpath exception is bogus. The entire claim that linking creates a
derivative work is
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 06:59:23PM +0100, Martin Hardie wrote:
It's nice to see some FSF doubters (I have just been reading this thread in
the archives) and questioning of their speech based copyright vision. I think
I agree with Micahel that precedent is fairly against the FSF and Lessig
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 05:54:40PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
In this context, I mean credible analysis of the legal issues. Eben
Moglen and Bruce Perens were both publicly quoted in the lead-in to
the MySQL trial as being confident that MySQL would win a preliminary
injuction on the
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:01:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The end being achieved is a major factor in finding a functional
interface for legal purposes.
We're in violent agreement, here.
The GPL is indeed an offer of contract, but it ties standards of breach
so closely to copyright
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
To summarize you argument: Debian includes both GPL-incompatible work
X and GPLed work Y. Work X can be run on top of other programs than
work Y, but Debian does not distribute those alternatives.
That last clause , but Debian
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:55:47PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
As I understand it, generally speaking, a contract has two
parties -- offeror and offeree.
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:04:02 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. However, it's worth noting that these parties
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:22 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't see how this sub-license construction satisfies the mandate
that the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
licensor...
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:08:57PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards
201 - 300 of 1213 matches
Mail list logo
