On 6/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P. S. Note, however, that the Linux kernel is a derivative work of
works by some other authors, such as netfilter/iptables. I don't mean
to say that no one but Linus can file a claim of copyright
infringement or breach of contract
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 Thursday 09 June 2005 11:10 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
The primary threat is not from the heirs (although that is a threat,
and you don't have control over all your heirs - your parents and
cousins can qualify),
If you're worried about your heirs revoking your
On Thursday 09 June 2005 06:36 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I wrote:
So I think it turns out I was right in the first place: continued
verbatim copying and distribution counts as utilization, and the
only scope for argument is about how much bug-fixing you can do after
termination
On 6/10/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could be right... but I think that Mills is distinguishable on the law
(if not also the facts...). The renewal right under (s)304 and the
termination right under (s)203 are really quite different. For example, the
renewal right is
On 6/10/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
304(c)(6)(A) is exactly the same text as 203(b)(1), and applies only
to termination during the extension term (the 19 years after 28+28)
of a pre-1978 copyright. ...
39 instead of 19 now, of course, courtesy of the Sonny Bono Act.
Anthony does an excellent job of making the arguments in favor of the
Linux kernel as a joint work and/or a collective work containing
multiple components under separate authorship; but I simply don't
agree.
The collective work theory doesn't hold water at all (except with
regard to firmware
Michael K. Edwards wrote (with spacing fixed):
2) the 50% rule applies to _authorship_, which connotes (per
Aalmuhammed v. Lee) a degree of creative control so high that, e.
g.,there is no candidate for authorship of the Linux kernel other
than Linus Torvalds;
I've read the cited case, and it
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:50:03AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Thursday 09 June 2005 11:10 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
The primary threat is not from the heirs (although that is a threat,
and you don't have control over all your heirs - your parents and
On Friday 10 June 2005 11:24 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No, your parents and cousins CANNOT qualify, blood relation is not enough
under the statute. The right of termination flows from you, to your
spouse, then to your children, and final to your estate's executor.
Sounds like a US
On 6/9/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
anyway, to take this thread back to the topic, I ask: is there
anything that would be accomplished by a public domain license
that is *not* accomplished by putting the work under the MIT
license? I don't think so.
And, if I am
I wrote:
So I think it turns out I was right in the first place: continued
verbatim copying and distribution counts as utilization, and the
only scope for argument is about how much bug-fixing you can do after
termination without being sued for preparing a new derivative work.
Sean commented
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:13:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
No argument from me... but it is the system we've got here in the States and
FOSS developers should plan accordingly, just as is expected of anyone else
who enters into the world of copyrights.
But that's just the problem--as far
On 6/7/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not so much projects that are actually around for 35 years. Rather,
if you maintain a project for, say, three or four years, I reuse large
chunks of it in my own project, and my project outlives yours. Decades
later, you (or your heirs)
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.
The GPL deliberately places obstacles to code reuse: it disallows reuse by
projects
To be precise, here is the relevant text from 17 USC 203:
(a) Conditions for Termination. In the case of any work other than a
work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer
or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by
the author on or after
On 6/7/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL deliberately places obstacles to code reuse: it disallows reuse by
projects that don't release every bit of linked code (more or less) under
a GPL-compatible license, in the hope of increasing code reuse in the long
term. I believe
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:09:28AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/7/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not so much projects that are actually around for 35 years. Rather,
if you maintain a project for, say, three or four years, I reuse large
chunks of it in my own
On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I integrate your MP3 decoding library into my media playing software. The
author of the MP3 decoding source code is very clear: you. I can only reuse
that library due to the license granted to it. That license is revoked. I
can no longer
On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if your claims are true, it would still require going to court to prove,
and until somebody successfully does that, very few people are going to go
against the FSF's claims. So, as a matter of actual practice, my statement
stands.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:02:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I integrate your MP3 decoding library into my media playing software. The
author of the MP3 decoding source code is very clear: you. I can only reuse
that library due to
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 05:57 am, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Published interface? Again, integrate into my software, not link
against a published interface. Copy code directly into my program, and
allow the works to merge and integrate.
On 6/8/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 05:57 am, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
If you truly wish to do so, you may strip your heirs, in your last
will and testament, of statutory termination rights, by the simple
expedient of ratifying an existing assignment
On 6/8/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This section is not referring to transferring termination rights by will, it
is referring to copyright assignment by will.
So, if I assign you my copyright in FOO via a will, then the assignment is not
subject to termination. However, it
On 20050606T165853-0400, Jeff King wrote:
So what's wrong with a license like:
You may do anything with this work that you would with a work in the
public domain.
I have occasionally used the following notice:
Written by Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho. You may treat this file as if it
were
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:58:53PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
_Probably_ a Dutch judge would treat the above statement as a
license that means do whatever you want, since he's supposed to
reconstruct the intention of the author from such a vague statement.
And do whatever you want seems the
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 06:47 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:58:53PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
_Probably_ a Dutch judge would treat the above statement as a
license that means do whatever you want, since he's supposed to
reconstruct the intention of the author from
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:36:27PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
To resolve this sad and not uncommon story, Congress granted the copyright
holders an inalienable termination right which allows the author to revoke a
In other words, for their own good, Congress removed people's right to
license
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 02:49 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:36:27PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
To resolve this sad and not uncommon story, Congress granted the
copyright holders an inalienable termination right which allows the
author to revoke a
In other words, for
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 use is just
part of everywhere). Permissive licenses
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:36:27PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Yes, it is the intention. How about a license like:
Do whatever you want.
The only argument I have heard against this is that you (or your heirs)
may later say Oh, but I didn't really mean *anything*. Which seems
silly
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:48:57PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Yes... because SO many works are released directly into the Public
Domain...
I have been on this list for about 6 weeks, and I have seen no less than
three active threads regarding public domain licenses. A minority,
perhaps, but
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 06:10 pm, Jeff King wrote:
I think there are actually two issues we're talking about. I was
mentioning a line of reasoning I have seen here[1], which indicates that
we must be explicit in crafting PD-ish licenses, because our heirs can
bring suit, saying that the
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 06:21 pm, Jeff King wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:48:57PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Yes... because SO many works are released directly into the Public
Domain...
I have been on this list for about 6 weeks, and I have seen no less than
three active threads
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:26:46PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
You are, as you say, talking about termination rights. But wouldn't
those be just as much an issue here as they are with, say, the GPL?
Oh yes, termination rights are certainly an issue with the GPL. However, you
can't
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 06:43 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:26:46PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
You are, as you say, talking about termination rights. But wouldn't
those be just as much an issue here as they are with, say, the GPL?
Oh yes, termination rights are
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 Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 01:38:24PM -0400, astronut wrote:
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Jeff King wrote:
The latter message is from me. I am looking for such a license, as I am
trying to avoid ridiculous license propagation. My ideal license would
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
astronut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am probably wrong here, since I joined the list in the middle of the
discussion, but can't you just put a notice at the top of the code like
this?
/* This code was written by name and is hereby released into the
public domain
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:57:47PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
What's the public domain in the context of UK / European law?
I don't know, as I am neither a lawyer nor a European. However, I assume
there is some concept of a work which has passed out of copyright (due
to time limitations).
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
The Netherlands is one. Well, we do have a public domain, but it
only contains works that by law have no copyright and works whose
copyright has expired.
So what's wrong with a license like:
You may do anything with this
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 Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:08:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
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
I have seen quite a few people who want to licence their software as though
it is in the public domain. they are often told to go with a bsd or x11
licence. They usually say they don't even whant the restrition of forcing
people to include the notice.
The reasoning for the use of the common
As long as whoever uses this license understands they are not, in fact,
putting it in the public domain (copyright is retained)... and that this is
not, in fact, a license (waver of implied warranty is a contractual
provision)... and that the license is not irrevocable (after 35 years the
First of, please use your real name when discussing things upon this
list. Anonymity makes it rather difficult for others to follow your
arguments, and interferes with the primary mission of debian-legal.
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Anonymous wrote:
I have seen quite a few people who want to licence
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:53:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
First of, please use your real name when discussing things upon this
list. Anonymity makes it rather difficult for others to follow your
arguments, and interferes with the primary mission of debian-legal.
I usually just ignore
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:53:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software].
The part above is almost a no-op, and a good idea
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:39:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Glenn Maynard wrote:
telling me that I can freely distribute the part that is Lua has no
value, since I can't actually do so (it's tucked away inside a
binary; if I want Lua, I'll go download the source).
49 matches
Mail list logo
