[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me the distinction is clear: you have to add something to the
algorithm before you arrive at patentable matter. You apparently
consider the addition (a computing device with a memory) to be
irrelevant, and hence you don't see a distinction.
The addition should be
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If you provide the program loaded into a computer, ready to execute,
then the court may likely hold that you infringe. If you publish
a printed piece of paper with the program's source, then you likely
do not infringe.
Like I said somewhere, non-tech-savvy judges
Michael Edwards wrote:
Dualism is on the retreat,
processes and machines are on an equal footing, and what makes
something not an abstract idea as such is that it be susceptible of
industrial application to reliably achieve a particular useful
result.
In practice, that's another distinction
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, when I found that (some of) the graphics had a source from which
they
could be compiled, I concluded two things:
- To satisfy the GPL, the source for those graphics needs to be distributed
as
well, so it must be in the source package.
Probably correct.
Andreas Barth wrote:
Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main.
Read TrueType instructions and say that again! Some fonts are most
certainly programs.
PDFs are arguably executables designed for a PDF interpreter.
But let's not get into that again right now.
--
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that documentation currently in main that uses the OPL could be
salvaged if we can convince the controlling body for the OPL to upgrade to a
version that's compatible with the DFSG. I have not, however, examined the
OPL carefully enough to determine if this is
Sean Kellogg wrote:
There is no such thing as software that isn't copyrighted.
He means software written after 1988, of course.
All original
expression that is fixed in a tangible form is immediately copyrighted (at
least, that's the U.S. rule).
Since the passage of the Berne Convention
On Saturday 23 July 2005 04:41 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:03:56 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
Anyone else have thoughts?
Yes, I have one:
|3. The licensee agrees to obey all U.S. Government res- trictions
|governing redistribution or export of the software
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me the distinction is clear: you have to add something to the
algorithm before you arrive at patentable matter. You apparently
consider the addition (a computing device with a memory) to be
irrelevant, and hence you don't see a
OK. Problems found. Please forward these to the appropriate authority, since
I couldn't work out how to.
Distribution requirements require the provision of way too much information
about the licensor. Geographic and electronic address? Come on.
Geographic address is a matter of privacy,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If you provide the program loaded into a computer, ready to execute,
then the court may likely hold that you infringe. If you publish
a printed piece of paper with the program's source, then you likely
do not infringe.
Like I said
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Patent is not copyright; you don't obtain a monopoly on describing
your method, you obtain a monopoly on its commercial application. No
patent prohibits you from making a computer program implementing any
algorithm you like; but if you sell it as a solution to the
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:23:33 +0100 Rich Walker wrote:
Ivo Danihelka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote:
I would like to ask,
if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible
with the Debian Social Contract.
Oh my goodness,
[Note to d-l readers: the subject is tongue-in-cheek, mmmkay? Film reference.]
On 7/24/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Patent is not copyright; you don't obtain a monopoly on describing
your method, you obtain a monopoly on its commercial application.
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:17:59 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
My gut instinct is no, it's fine, put it in main, because the
compiler is not required by the system, since the system functions
fine without recompiling the graphics (and will continue to). I may
be wrong, though!
Huh?
Are you
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:37:05 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
And, of course, the license options are non-free, but nobody uses
them anyway.
I wish this were true... :-(
I recall seeing those clearly non-free options used more than once (and
take into account that I haven't seen so many OPL'd
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 21:46 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Saturday 23 July 2005 08:04 pm, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 17:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
This is a difficult situation that is worth commentary. Assume for a
moment that the U.S. has some strict export
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
...
On 7/24/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I invite
you to question the assumption that algorithms are mathematics. My
preferred US dictionary (American Heritage, third edition) has it that
an algorithm is a step-by-step problem solving procedure,
On 7/24/05, Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Algorthms are, in a general sense, semiotics, for the step-by-step
problem solving procedure processes data. When the processing is to be
done by a digital computer, the instruction set in which the algorithm
can be encoded sets and
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 03:37 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, these are the problems with it:
Lemme see if I can condense these down. I had a hard time reading your response.
Add explicit permission to make and distribute modified versions.
Remove or soften requirements for
Hi,
The GStreamer suite ships a lot of plugins which are dlopened() when
needed. Some of them link with GPL libraries.
I received a bug report (#317129) to change the copyright files of
libgstreamer0.8-0 and gstreamer0.8-mad to GPL.
The upstream README mentions the situation, so I
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 20:50 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
The GStreamer suite ships a lot of plugins which are dlopened() when
needed. Some of them link with GPL libraries.
I received a bug report (#317129) to change the copyright files of
libgstreamer0.8-0 and gstreamer0.8-mad to GPL.
I wrote, in response to Prof. de Rezende:
Yes, all very lovely, I've read Douglas Hofstadter's books too. ...
This was a cheap shot, and I'm ashamed to re-read it. I didn't mean
by this that Prof. de Rezende was not right to ground the algorithms
are mathematics perspective in the primary
23 matches
Mail list logo
