Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The package is the result of collection and
assembling of two preexisting materials. However, what is the
reason for qualifying the resulting work as an original work
of authorship? The definition seems to suggest that
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:34:28PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
The problem is that all such definitions are based on the notion that
a work is either something tangible, or a performance act. They
simply don't apply well to computer programs.
You're living in the
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But anyway, although computer programs definitely are recognized
as subject to copyright in the EU, they do not fit the definition
of derivative work or adaptation very well. There just is no
guidance in this area. If you translate something, turn a
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The package is the result of collection and
assembling of two preexisting materials. However, what is the
reason for qualifying the resulting work as an original work
of
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 17:22, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Actually, it's closer than you think. Any product [arbitrary
definition] that requires all three components is a derivative work of
all of them; that will almost certainly violate one or more of the
licenses.
It may be; it may not be. Not
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The original issue, as far as I understood is, was whether it
is allowed to bundle a GPL-licensed plugin with a host program
under a GPL-incompatible license. Or actually, a host that
also uses a second plugin which is under
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Exactly my point. What would the equivalent of dynamic linking be? A
book that says on the first page: take chapters 3 and 6 from book Foo
and insert after chapter 4 in this book, then read the result.
Wasn't there a case with a book containing questions and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But anyway, although computer programs definitely are recognized
as subject to copyright in the EU, they do not fit the definition
of derivative work or adaptation very well. There just is no
guidance in
Rahul has invited you to join Rahul's personal
and private network on Ryze.
To view the invite, click on:
http://www.ryze.com/in/yyXOSc48EJOdzekCfQab
Ryze is a networking service that helps
people grow their careers, businesses and lives.
* meet entrepreneurs, CEOs and other neat
Rahul has invited you to join Rahul's personal
and private network on Ryze.
To view the invite, click on:
http://www.ryze.com/in/P4qjjgGbhzs8pJBCIBfQ
Ryze is a networking service that helps
people grow their careers, businesses and lives.
* meet entrepreneurs, CEOs and other neat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
Wouldn't such a book be allowed? I can't see anything that would stop
it.
You're probably right. I wasn't looking for something that wouldn't be
allowed, but for something that is as close as possible as linking. It
seems that what I invented,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Küster) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
Wouldn't such a book be allowed? I can't see anything that would stop
it.
You're probably right. I wasn't looking for something that wouldn't be
allowed, but for something that is as close as possible as
Dear all,
does anybody know what is going to happen with regard to LPPL-1.3, and
in which timeline? The latest mails I found were
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00206.html
(a new draft)
and two analyses by Branden Robinson, with one follow-up by Frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Küster) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
Wouldn't such a book be allowed? I can't see anything that would stop
it.
You're probably right. I wasn't looking for something that wouldn't be
allowed, but
[ Adding -legal to the Cc; it may become inappropriate for -devel, at ]
[ some point, in which case folks should remove the -devel Cc. The -bsd ]
[ Cc should probably remain no matter what, as this could potentially ]
[ affect any of the BSD ports.
Scripsit Pierre Machard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Last week a RC bug was filled on this package (#223197). A good solution
to close this bug is probably to upload a newer version,
No, it seems to be yet another fallout of the linux-kernel-header
transition. There are quite a lot of those at the
16 matches
Mail list logo
