righted material under consideration were the text (and arrangement)
> of menus?
I read the thread as being about some Questions about legal theory behind
(L)GPL, so I think its fair to talk about a broad approach. What I found
compelling in Michael's posts was the fact that he cited some
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:59:23 +0100, Martin Hardie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> 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 t
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:46:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I agree that I was tacitly assuming that I was writing for people who knew
> what debian is (a volunteer free-software group which helps coordinate
> -- and relies heavily on -- support from people who are not explicitly
> members of th
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:47:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Anyways, freedom is a very broad issue, but the freedoms Debian is
> > concerned about are rather specific kinds of freedom (especially those
> > that allow us to distribute debian on multiple platforms, and those that
> > allow us
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:47:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Anyways, freedom is a very broad issue, but the freedoms Debian is
> concerned about are rather specific kinds of freedom (especially those
> that allow us to distribute debian on multiple platforms, and those that
> allow us to fix bug
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 Thursday 20 January 2005 17:38, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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
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 w
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:18:55 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > But the FSF is going to lose a lot of credibility, even with the
> > choir, if they wait until their noses are rubbed in it in the next
> > lawsuit to
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> But the FSF is going to lose a lot of credibility, even with the
> choir, if they wait until their noses are rubbed in it in the next
> lawsuit to admit that there isn't any universal "law of license" in
> the real world after al
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:28:33 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> This is meta discussion about an oversimplification. It's basically
> correct, but I don't think the emperor is running around nude, even if
> that hat is a bit skimpy.
I don't think claiming that contract law has
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 t
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:27:08 +0100, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:53:58 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
> > (don't use Google Search in the same tab as your GMail session!)
>
> Even better: don't use GMail at all, it has many privacy issues!
It's free-as-
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:04:09 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I think you're confusing EULA with Copyright License.
>
> With copyright, the copyright holder grants license to the publisher
> to make copies and that's usually the end of the story. There are
> exceptions, of c
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:53:58 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> (don't use Google Search in the same tab as your GMail session!)
Even better: don't use GMail at all, it has many privacy issues!
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
..
> 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
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:22 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:55:47PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
> > A mandate without an implementation is subject to construction.
> > Construing agency to issue sublicenses leaves the contract between
> > dist
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 parti
I wrote:
> Suppose the FSF had gone beyond complaining and threatening when KDE
> used Qt under the QPL ...
And negotiating effectively too, of course. I'm glad that Qt is now
QPL/GPL dual licensed, and I prefer the GPL. I don't mean to sound
quite so one-sided here; just because I think the FSF
[routed back to debian-legal; I accidentally replied directly to Raul]
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:04:02 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > The GPL is a license document, and "automatically receives" is a
> > > > > license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:41:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Well, by the nature of free software, I can incorporate code into my
> program from yours (or into a friend's program, eg. writing a patch for
> lftp incorporating code from wget), without you necessarily being made
> aware of it at a
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:04:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I imagine that (where two copyright holders differ from one another in
> > > their interpretation) the judge would look at the history of how these two
> > > copyright holders have acted. If one has recently changed their intent
>
> > > > The GPL is a license document, and "automatically receives" is a
> > > > license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
> > > > granting license is what copyright licenses do.
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:48:55PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > "The GPL isn't l
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:48:23 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The GPL is a license document, and "automatically receives" is a
> > > license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
> > > granting license is what copyright licenses do.
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 a
> > The GPL is a license document, and "automatically receives" is a
> > license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
> > granting license is what copyright licenses do.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:48:55PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> "The GPL isn't law" was in response
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:21:19 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:09:09PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > The GPL isn't law, and its characterization of what's happening under
> > law when you distribute a modified work is pretty bogus. (The
> > recipient
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:09:09PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The GPL isn't law, and its characterization of what's happening under
> law when you distribute a modified work is pretty bogus. (The
> recipient "automatically receives"?)
The GPL is a license document, and "automatically rece
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:51:19 +0100, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:54:29 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:27:26 +0100, Francesco Poli [...] wrote:
> [...]
> > > In my understanding "sublicensing" means redistributing under a
> > > dif
> > Same difference, legally.
> > [...] "a mere waiver of the right to sue" [...]
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:51:19AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> So you are saying that, when I copy and distribute a GPL'd program, I am
> violating the law and staying unpunished.
No, you're not violating the la
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:54:29 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:27:26 +0100, Francesco Poli [...] wrote:
[...]
> > In my understanding "sublicensing" means redistributing under a
> > different license, and that is what a copyleft license is supposed
> > to not allow...
> > If
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:27:26 +0100, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:11:21 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
> > I think it's implicit in granting the right to distribute a modified
> > work, since that usually requires permission from the copyright holder
> >
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:11:21 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:41:16 +0100, Francesco Poli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> >
> > > The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual
> > > (barring breac
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:00:05 +, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got lost somewhere along the way: Why is it important to you whether
> the GPL is a "contract" or not?
To me, personally? It bugs me to see needless conflicts within the
Free Software world caused by GPL interpreta
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:00:05 +, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got lost somewhere along the way: Why is it important to you whether
> the GPL is a "contract" or not?
To me, personally? It bugs me to see needless conflicts within the
Free Software world caused by GPL interpreta
Scripsit "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
>> I guess I'm convinced. :-)
> That the GPL is legally an offer of contract? If so, it's good to
> know that the substance of my argument is persuasive to at least one
> person besides myse
Scripsit "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
>> I guess I'm convinced. :-)
> That the GPL is legally an offer of contract? If so, it's good to
> know that the substance of my argument is persuasive to at least one
> person besides myse
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Edwards wrote:
> >Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
> >impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
> >it's still performance.
> Right, this was the v
Actually, Effects v. Cohen is a prime example of "implied license as
an implied provision in the existing contract":
The district court initially dismissed the suit, holding that it was
primarily a contract dispute and, as such, did not arise under federal
law. In an opinion remarkable for its lu
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Edwards wrote:
> >Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
> >impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
> >it's still performance.
> Right, this was the v
Actually, Effects v. Cohen is a prime example of "implied license as
an implied provision in the existing contract":
The district court initially dismissed the suit, holding that it was
primarily a contract dispute and, as such, did not arise under federal
law. In an opinion remarkable for its lu
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
there is a written agreement involved, a court will only find an
implied license as an implied provision in that agreement. As I wrote
before, if anyone can
Michael Edwards wrote:
>Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
>impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
>it's still performance.
Right, this was the very specific question we were getting to. :-)
In determining the DFSG-freeness of a lice
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
there is a written agreement involved, a court will only find an
implied license as an implied provision in that agreement. As I wrote
before, if anyone can cit
Michael Edwards wrote:
>Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
>impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
>it's still performance.
Right, this was the very specific question we were getting to. :-)
In determining the DFSG-freeness of a lice
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:49:08 +0100, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> > if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:49:08 +0100, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> > if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
> interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license
> under the G
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
> interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license
> under the G
Thanks, Batist; it's good to hear how this works in a civil law
system. I didn't think it likely that licenses came in a non-contract
form there either. Judging from your comments and from
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/belgium/page1.html , it
sounds like copyright licenses are stan
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 06:04:36 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry this is so long and meandering...
By comparison with some of the things I write, it's a model of
linearity. :) But my response is necessarily long as well.
> I wrote:
> > There's a reason I used the analogy o
Thanks, Batist; it's good to hear how this works in a civil law
system. I didn't think it likely that licenses came in a non-contract
form there either. Judging from your comments and from
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/belgium/page1.html , it
sounds like copyright licenses are stan
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 06:04:36 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry this is so long and meandering...
By comparison with some of the things I write, it's a model of
linearity. :) But my response is necessarily long as well.
> I wrote:
> > There's a reason I used the analogy o
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:41:16 +0100, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
> > The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
> > breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
>
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
> breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
^^
I don't see where the GPL permits me to sublicense...
> That implies a contract
>
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:41:16 +0100, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
> > The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
> > breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
>
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
> breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
^^
I don't see where the GPL permits me to sublicense...
> That implies a contract
>
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
> > from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
> > demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
> > from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
> > demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:21:32PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But in the case of the GPL, he's not bound. It's just that he's
> already issued the license -- or are you talking about some case other
> than an author releasing his own works under the GPL?
I don't think he's claiming that
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
> from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
> demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
> derived works) is as an offer of (bilate
Sorry this is so long and meandering...
I wrote:
> There's a reason I used the analogy of "You may walk on my property,
> provided you walk barefoot". It's different from "You may walk on my
> property, provided you give me five dollars". Despite the formulation,
> it actually amounts to "You ma
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:55:25 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've cited cases about implied licenses under both the 1909 and 1976
> Copyright Acts (in the US). As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
> for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
>
Raul -
With regard to secondary publication, if you had in mind sublicensing
by the licensee, I know of no case in which a right to sublicense was
found without reference to a valid bilateral contract. (The Effects
case comes closest, if you buy Kozinski's argument and read a form of
implied lice
Raul Miller wrote:
[snip]
> Are you saying that copyright law is always equivalent to a bilateral
> contract?
Far from it. I am saying that:
the legally recognized mechanism for granting a copyright license,
in any jurisdiction I have heard named, is a contract;
there is ample precedent,
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:19:04PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
> from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
> demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
> derived works) is as a
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
derived works) is as an offer of (bilateral) contract, duly accepted
by the licensee, in return fo
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:46:43 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Warning: IANAL.
IANAL either. Just interested (at least in the non-legal sense).
1) The (L)GPL is legally an offer of contract, right?
It was claimed during the debian-devel discus
Warning: IANAL.
>1) The (L)GPL is legally an offer of contract, right?
>
>It was claimed during the debian-devel discussion that the LGPL is
>somehow a unilateral grant of rights under some legal theory other
>than contract, which doesn't make sense to me.
If you agree to the GPL (or LGPL), you
There has been some discussion on debian-devel recently regarding the
Linux Core Consortium's plan to share build procedures and resulting
object code among several GNU/Linux distros. Their intention is to
satisfy independent software vendors' demands for a set of "golden
binaries", including comp
69 matches
Mail list logo
