Hey, didn't you *plunk* me twice? So, why are you still posting?
I am trying to have a conversation here, and you keep bumping into.
You either have something interesting to say, or YOU are off-topic.
You are so arrogant! And so annoying! It is clear that you have
nothing good to say on this
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 09:31:37AM +, Jeff Prescot wrote:
You either have something interesting to say, or YOU are off-topic.
http://lists.debian.org/misc.html says about debian-legal
Copyright, licensing and patent issues.
It doesn't explicitly say relevant to Debian activities.
Do we
]
^^
* Subject: Re: Group Copyright
* From: Jeff Prescot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:32:52 +
* Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
I have no more words for Branden Robinson.
-- Jeff
Hello,
Steve wrote:
The DMCA is not needed to enforce the WIPO treaty
(standard US copyright law did that).
I believe the DMCA is needed in that sense. Let me show why.
The following is a quote from Appendix II of the US copyright law,
entitled Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988:
Most of Jeff Prescot's letter was off-topic for this mailing list.
I'm replying here on the slight chance that some of this is
actually relevant to this list.
Please send replies to me, personally, instead of to the list,
unless it's really something that's relevant to the list.
The DMCA is
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 12:09:42AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
* Mail-Followup-To isn't standard either.
The draft which was sent to drums got lost, the closest thing to an
rfc is http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html.
FYI,
--
Raul
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
AIUI, the correct Mail-Copies-To: header is never, not nobody.
Can you direct me to a reference for canonical usage of this header?
I'd appreciate it a great deal.
http://www.newsreaders.com/misc/mail-copies-to.html
is the
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:04:22PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
Anyway, mutt disregards that header as well. I use Mail-Followup-To:
instead (for exactly the opposite purpose, but it can be used for yours),
which mutt does recognize.
Note that Branden had Mail-Followup-To:
Why are you disregarding my mail headers?
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
Why are you using an MUA that also does so?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:32:52PM +, Jeff Prescot wrote:
So, is the DMCA is not being applied properly, or the DMCA is
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 11:29:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why are you disregarding my mail headers?
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
Why are you using an MUA that also does so?
AIUI, the correct Mail-Copies-To: header is never, not
On 14-Aug-01, 17:32 (CDT), Jeff Prescot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, is the DMCA is not being applied properly, or the DMCA is not
implementing the WIPO Treaties correctly? What is your standpoint?
The DMCA is not needed to enforce the WIPO treaty (standard US copyright
law did that). The DMCA
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:04:22PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
AIUI, the correct Mail-Copies-To: header is never, not nobody.
Can you direct me to a reference for canonical usage of this header?
I'd appreciate it a great deal.
Anyway, mutt disregards that header as well. I use
would appear to threaten these rights.
Again, what the DMCA is for and how it's used are not necessarily the
same thing.
On Group Copyright, the law is simple. It applies to each single
author of the commonly written work. And the DMCA, again, is granting
you the right to do
and I also understand that along the same line there are people who
dislike the copyright law, but the world at large (including us), has
agreed upon UN conventions *to protect* basic rights world-wide!
It may be the *intent* of the DMCA to protect basic rights, but as
applied in the United
of the GPL.
I am afraid the GPL has nothing to do with it. The GPL is legally valid,
in front of the DMCA; it is, in fact, an unlimited licence which is
freely signed by the author/copyright owner.
On Group Copyright, the law is simple. It applies to each single
author of the commonly written
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 10:01:32AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
I was mostly talking about binding on the developers. If a license
isn't binding on the copyright owner, licensing is a non-issue,
because the result is undistributable by definition.
What are you talking about?
However you seem to
IANAL.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 03:37:11PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
A license is a contract, and wording within is binding.
Even on people under 18 years of age? I think this is the biggest
loophole of all in the practice of licenses; any click-wrap license must
not apply to users under 18, since
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
IANAL.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 03:37:11PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
A license is a contract, and wording within is binding.
Even on people under 18 years of age? I think this is the biggest
I was mostly talking about binding on the developers. If a
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit
IANAL.
The statute in question is 17USC501(b):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/501.html
c.f. Japanese copyright law 117, which basically states that
A copyright holder of a group of copyright holders can act against copyright
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm snipping the normal John Galt obstructionism, off-topic political
commentary, and attempts to confuse issues, and responding only to the
real questions.
No, snippage around you usually means an attempt to redefine the argument.
John Galt [EMAIL
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assume of course that you have cites on this? Please provide them.
Cites? What on earth are you talking about?
Had you quoted the entirety, it would have been patently obvious.
Your paragraph that the cite
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:22:48PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Ask Dmitriy Sklyarov how ineffectual it is
Isn't he the guy who treatened to sue over archives?
Yeah, I can see how you'd confuse a Mediterranean name like Sergio
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:57:01PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
We've been over this, and my randroid philosophy is closer to the truth
than this claptrap. Unorganized groups are becoming closer to having
legal standing.
Heretic! You're promoting collectivism! You're banished from the Gulch
and
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
However, if you carry on like that, you will soon find it impossible
to contact all the authors, which means you won't later be able to
change or clarify the licence. As I said before, that can be an
advantage. However, it could also be a
Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
wise? IIRC, should it become necessary, legal action cannot be taken by
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
wise? IIRC, should it become
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
wise? IIRC, should it
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
wise? IIRC, should it become
you
couldn't assign the rights to the FSF even if you wanted to. So we'd
better hope there isn't a legal problem with group copyright (and I
don't think there is).
Edmund
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:53:30AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
How then should free software projects handle Copyright? Advice would be
appreciated. I'm sure I'm not the first person to ever worry about this.
As a necessary evil :) Seriously, the only real way to deal with it is
to do what is
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:53:30AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
How then should free software projects handle Copyright? Advice would be
appreciated. I'm sure I'm not the first person to ever worry about this.
As a necessary evil :) Seriously, the only
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 09:17:37AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
On the other hand, having a large number of copyright holders of a GPL
project can be an advantage: it means the project cannot easily be
bought out or have its licence changed or abused, as you would need
the consent of
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
I can see where you are going. The alternatives I see are pretty much
five:
1) the list of thirty names
If there is no legal problem with this, it's reasonable.
2) the group/readme
If there is no legal problem with this, it's
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
I can see where you are going. The alternatives I see are pretty much
five:
1) the list of thirty names
If there is no legal problem with this, it's reasonable.
True, but this is the
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 05:20:09AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
2) the group/readme
If there is no legal problem with this, it's better (because it's less of
a hassle!)
I'm thinking it could be construed as a DBA.
?
Don't you still have to notify everyone? What if some people cannot be
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
4) incorporate (some places incorporation requires some small number
[anywhere from 1 to 5] of incorporators, and a few bucks to the state:
Idaho requires one and $30, for example).
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 03:29:58AM -0700, Joseph
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
Well supposedly SPI already exists for this purpose, however SPI and
Debian both cower in fear from the mere potential of a cease-and-desist
letter because someone got the bright idea that one might be possible
under a silly US currently law being actively
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 06:06:54AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Well supposedly SPI already exists for this purpose, however SPI and
Debian both cower in fear from the mere potential of a cease-and-desist
letter because someone got the bright idea that one might be possible
under a silly US
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 05:20:09AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
2) the group/readme
If there is no legal problem with this, it's better (because it's less of
a hassle!)
I'm thinking it could be construed as a DBA.
?
The group name would be as if a
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
The group name would be as if a partnership filed a Does Business As.
For the case of Oregon (the only state where I've mucked with this stuff),
you have to file for a partnership with the commerce department, just
like you'd have to
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True, but this is the outcome that we're trying to avoid, as it's
sub-optimal.
we.
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the fiction that a corporation has rights as a person is granted, it
only follows that the next step in the progression is that unincorporated
groups start to get the same rights. It's as screwed up as a
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the fiction that a corporation has rights as a person is granted, it
only follows that the next step in the progression is that unincorporated
groups start to get the
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) the list of thirty names
This is annoying, but works fine.
What are you trying to say here that hasn't already been said?
2) the group/readme
This is dangerous, because the group has no legal reality as a
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Ask Dmitriy Sklyarov how ineffectual it is
Isn't he the guy who treatened to sue over archives? If so, then yeah, I
was shocked and dismayed to see something resembling a backbone for a
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assume of course that you have cites on this? Please provide them.
Cites? What on earth are you talking about?
I'm saying I don't think that it's appropriate for you to toss in
pointless Randroid nonsense into discussions. It obstructs your own
point to
46 matches
Mail list logo
