is only
governed by U.S. Copyright law if they chose to distribute it beyond the
States.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED
likely than not that you weren't even
violating it, much less willfully :)
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, let go
it, too.
I believe this comment has already been properly responded to in an previous
post by Mr. Maynard.
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL
On Friday 25 February 2005 08:52 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Can this list PLEASE stop the belief that ducking your head in the
sand in regard to patent violations saves you from increased liability?
What would that achieve?
I don't
and patent
infringement, it is coming, I assure you... unfortunately finals have reared
their ugly head and I haven't had time to write something of reasonable
quality on the subject.
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor
it sits.
Of course, you may not end up liking what the judge says :)
Its actually quite a shame that there haven't been any court cases on the
terms of the GPL... would make for some fascinating reading.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington
terms are, well... that's when
things get quite a bit more interesting :)
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, let go
, they are not participants in the license, nor
beneficiaries in the contract (note that I am politely avoiding the important
legal ambiguity as to whether this is a license or a contract). The phrase
is a very nice pledge of intent, but its not going to be enforceable in a
court of law.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
On Friday 25 March 2005 07:33 am, Michael Below wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not a developer either, but from the legal point of view you're
right, I'd say. Their README.crypto says:
Without limiting the generality of
On Saturday 26 March 2005 01:01 am, Josh Triplett wrote:
To the best of my knowledge (IANAL), there is no issue with someone in
Cuba or another embargoed country downloading Debian from
ftp.xx.debian.org, for values of xx != us or probably a few others.
Key issue here: it is *not* illegal to
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh well, what you waiting for?
...it's all right
...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
On Monday 28 March 2005 12:03 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 06:08:08PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Its not so much that copyright is pro-corporate as has been said
(although it is), its that copyright won't assume anything about your
behavior.
...
Copyright assumes
really create
all that much copyrightable work these days. Its far more common that it
gives cash to a group with the right to a license to that work. But that's
just my impression and I have no facts to back up the claim :)
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
and implied license issues aside). Again, this is a
right of copyright law, not just contract.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh
that will
be written into the Uniform Commercial Code in the next few decades (behold,
the speed of legal evolution!).
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
c: 206.498.8207
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 06:55 am, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance,
no contract, no exceptions.
False
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 03:09 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No
acceptance, no contract, no exceptions
pay for the software before you're allowed
to see the EULA?
It is enforcable and is called a rolling contract. Seminal case is ProCD,
Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Circut, 1996).
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar
BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Licence taken from http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
--
Sean Kellogg
irrevocable.
Certainly it is frustrating, but I think there are sound policy reasons behind
the law.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
c: 206.498.8207 e
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
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 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
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.
their termination right
over that license (but not the transfer to Frank... since transferring the
copyright by will is not susceptible to termination).
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http
even keep the original copy around! Does making a
derivative really earn you so many rights that you not only get to keep the
copy, but also made new copies and distribute?!
... something doesn't smell right.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh well, what you waiting for?
...it's all right
...'Cause there's
this violate the
Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian state citizen?
I wasn't around when these tests were developed... but they seem to cause
more trouble than resolve problems.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator
the
Project's work. Perhaps this is the time to seriously consider how
debian-legal functions and on what sort of basis it makes decisions.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http
. It doesn't say anything
about not requiring contribution.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh
On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the date of any change. Doesn't this
violate the Dissident test
On Saturday 11 June 2005 03:21 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political science
perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a self-appointed group
of various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making
the opinions of a few d-l posters. I find
great satisfaction in the dissident test myself, but I agree with a lot of
things that don't happen to be in my nation's Constitution... doesn't make
them so.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student
knowledge of
the violation, he is entitled to triple damages.
Law student Sean Kellogg disputed that popular legend on this list
in February 2005. Because I don't live in home of the brave, land
of the legal fee I don't know who to believe.
Like I said then, and really meant to put together
be very
concerned with language prohibiting use of code by left-handed people.
Just some thoughts on the topic,
Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
w: http
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 07:41 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:18:39PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination.
A group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the
Court says that while
On Saturday 18 June 2005 07:18 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 06:11:45PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Shocking as it may sound, I agree with everything Michael has said here.
Cleanroom implementation is not a good defense against copyright
infringement. If you want to write
?), then
I must go to Amsterdam, then it would be fine with me.
--
Henning MakholmWe can hope that this serious deficiency will
be remedied in the final version of BibTeX, 1.0, which is expected to
appear when the LaTeX 3.0 development is completed.
--
Sean Kellogg
1st Year - UW Law
by just not building the documentation the first time.
--
Sean Kellogg
1st Year - UW Law School
c: 206.498.8207e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://www.livejournal.com/users/economyguy/ -- lazy mans blog
When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything
as if it were a nail
other
| steps (such as notifying appropriate mailing lists or newsgroups)
| reasonably calculated to inform those who received the Covered Code
| that new knowledge has been obtained.
This fails the Chinese Dissident test.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
Sean Kellogg
1st Year - UW Law School
c
to protect this this test beyond our poor
socially-isolated programmer?
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - UW Law School
c: 206.498.8207e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://www.livejournal.com/users/economyguy/ -- lazy mans blog
When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything
the restatement. But I'm happy to type them out if you are interested in
this beyond pure academic discussion.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - UW Law School
c: 206.498.8207e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://www.livejournal.com/users/economyguy/ -- lazy mans blog
When the only tool you have
On Tuesday 13 July 2004 01:06 am, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 00:56:39 -0700, Sean Kellogg escribía:
back to B due to lack of communication facilities. The duty in question
will be discharged by the court under section 261 provided section 263 is
95% of the world
.
But impracticability comes from the old courts of England, so I'll bet its
pretty standard.
Ain't the Common Law system great ;)
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - UW Law School
c: 206.498.8207e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://www.livejournal.com/users/economyguy/ -- lazy mans blog
When the only tool you have
.
Thats the end of the attribution license comments. I'm going to reserve
further comments to see if anyone cares about these concerns.
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - UW Law School
c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://www.livejournal.com/users/economyguy/ -- lazy mans blog
Good government
be a contract and it
must be agreed to (in the GPL's case, it is agreed to by conduct). Others on
this list take a different view, but fail to explain how they avoid the
warranty stuff.
So calling the GPL a License Agreement strikes me as the correct and honest
thing.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year
On Friday 08 July 2005 02:37 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(dropped CC's; it's probably not productive for the actual contract-or-not
debates to go to the bug, since we're not likely to come to a firm
conclusion anyway)
Sounds good to me.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:11:24PM -0700, Sean Kellogg
someone
to agree to a license before they use the software doesn't seem to go against
any of DFSGs. Obviously what you say IN the license makes a whole heep of
difference... but I think that's a far cry from saying mandatory agreement
is non-free.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University
On Sunday 10 July 2005 03:21 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:56:50AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Maybe impractical, but so far I can't see why they should be non-free.
Now you're claiming that an impractical license can be free? I think
your notion of what is free is so
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 01:18 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:53:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 08:06 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:14:29PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Well, like I said... I can't fault your logic. The GPL's use
provisions, or more accurately its express disclaimer there of, do not
require consent. BUT, everyone has
. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:34 PM
To: Sean Kellogg
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd Help-About $KDE-app tab calls the
GPL License Agreement, ie; a contract.
On 7/12/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 02:40 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for Specht V. Netscape, Michael, I know you are a smart guy who is
good with citations; it boggles me that you would reference this case.
This case deals
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:10 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If individual A is authorized to distribute software, and individual B
initiates an action that results in a copy being made of that software
from A's distribution server, has B violated
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 10:32 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The
question is whether its okay to mandate acceptance of the GPL at
download. I am suggesting that you
itself, as was the original bug's contention. The click-wrap argument is
just an offshoot of that original discussion.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But no one has presented a cogent argument about how mandating that
people actually agree to the terms of the GPL poses a threat
On Sunday 10 July 2005 09:53 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 05:51:17PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Glenn, don't you think he's talking about technologically impractical.
We all know how easy it is to circumvent click wrap licenses. But you
HAVE to agree to the GPL
than myself to look into it (they happen to be out of the office right now...
so any response may take a while). But absent that theory, there is nothing
that grants you the right to 'apt-get install GPL PROGRAM' other than the GPL
itself.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University
On Thursday 14 July 2005 09:46 am, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But I'm not talking about USE, I'm talking about the possession of a copy
of the code. You are not permitted to have a copy of the code without
permission under the law
someone
explain to me why its NOT a license agreement? Do you not in fact have to
agree to the GPL if you intend to use the rights under the GPL?
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service Activities Committee
On Thursday 14 July 2005 01:00 pm, Patrick Herzig wrote:
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I'd really like to return to the question that got us all started.
Is calling the GPL a License Agreement a bug? Apparently my you have
to agree to the GPL anyway theory has
On Thursday 14 July 2005 02:28 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Thursday 14 July 2005 12:56 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But no one has presented a cogent argument about how mandating that
people actually agree
there that says this
sort of behavior isn't copying and allowable, please share.
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair
w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh
with that as well, but it gets us way closer to the pale than
attempts to disclaim the copyright.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair
w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com
So
On Monday 18 July 2005 03:13 pm, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 11:45 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Monday 18 July 2005 11:07 am, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
What we *don't* want, is software that is copyrighted (which PD
software isn't) and then without a license, because
bad policy. Certainly having a
package that prohibits charging for distribution would prevent it from being
on a Debian CD sold by one of the vendors. Based on the DFSG I'd have to
point to #1 and #6... but both are kind of stretches.
Anyone else have thoughts?
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year
On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
License 1 contains a limitation on use (educational, research and
non-profit purposes, without fee) which is a violation of DFSG #6.
License 2 is less obvious, but I personally believe
their
derivative... but outside of a copyleft context, I can't imagine an author
wanting a translator to have the authority to translate back into the initial
language and sell competing versions.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional
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
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 restriction. As a U.S.
citizen I am bound by those laws and cannot
this license
only require source distribution for six months? This change seems
unnecessary to pass under the DSFG if the GPL is acceptable.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service Activities Committee
On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
Sean Kellogg skellogg at u.washington.edu writes:
[8 Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8]
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
But if they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great
On Saturday 30 July 2005 04:38 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
But if they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for
users of Debian! I'm
On Sunday 31 July 2005 12:13 am, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/30/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
... choice-of-venue clauses just keep people from playing
the venue shopping game.
Is there actually anywhere in the world that a choice-of-venue clause
in a contract
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
Sean Kellogg skellogg at u.washington.edu writes:
[8 Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8]
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses
, I have a lot to learn... but based on the
conversations on this list, I think I'm about as qualified as anyone else to
point out that the term available is different from distribute and should
be changed if you want to avoid confusion.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:35 pm, Michael Poole wrote:
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
In contrast to choice of law, choice of venue requires users who are
not normally subject to that court's personal jurisdiction to give up
a right they normally
licensed, the rest is really outside of
the scope of Debian's distribution requirements.
Taking it to the next step... is there really anything wrong with using a CC
license in this instance (granting that the CC license is non-free).
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington
On Saturday 06 August 2005 03:31 am, Henning Makholm wrote:
A non-free license would not allow contents from the wiki to be copied
into distribution that they hope for Debian to distribute with their
software.
You're absolutely right, I withdraw my question.
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year
isn't the issue, it's
the expression that is being copied. What you seem to be talking about is
literal copying. But in the eyes of the law, translation is considered
copying of the underlying expression.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate
a derivative work (no copying) and thus avoid infringment (case
is Lee v. Art).
But to be honest, I have no idea how this relates to this thread... I just
thought I'd share :)
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
didn't do so well last quarter and they had to let go a
bunch of their contract employees. It's a shame :(
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair
w: http
and people were free to share
things with others that it was linux-like.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair
w: http://www.probonogeek.org
So, let go
...Jump
as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner is not
infringement... but just because it's not infringement does not make the
resulting work a derivative work.
So that's why the terms apply,
Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 01:46 pm, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
I'm pretty sure it is a PHP-derivative. It relies on all sorts of built
in PHP functions to create the finished work. Perhaps... PERHAPS...
the code you download for phpbb, on its own, MIGHT be a separate
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 02:17 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 01:46 pm, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
I'm pretty sure it is a PHP-derivative. It relies on all sorts of
built in PHP functions to create
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 03:44 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 02:17 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 01:46 pm, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
I'm
On Thursday 25 August 2005 02:01 am, MJ Ray wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
As source code, it is not a derivative, I agree... but once it is
compiled it
is now a derivative work joining the library with the code to form the
final binary. Its the act of compilation
On Friday 26 August 2005 02:51 am, MJ Ray wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] When a user downloads phpbb2 and joins it with PHP to
create the finished derivative product it seems they are in violation of
the license.
Can users call the combined thing 0x6a671236
thereof).
If you still think that game mechanics are not copyrightable, can you point me
to some authority to support your claim. I'd be interested to see how they
are distinguished from things like cookbooks (which are copyrighted).
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School
On Saturday 27 August 2005 11:38 am, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 11:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
but aside from that, you would need a license if you intend to just copy
the d20 system (or create a derivative thereof).
I think there is a miscommunication here: I think Ken
On Saturday 27 August 2005 12:27 pm, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 12:01 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But the text is an embodiment of the expression of the game...
Is it? If I take, for example, the experience progression tables from
the d20 system I can easily determine
On Saturday 27 August 2005 04:01 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:07:37 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
Sure, there is an underlying mathmatical formula. And you are free to
use any mathmatical formula to create charts to your heart's content.
But the DD people chose
, to be sure :)
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair
w: http://www.probonogeek.org
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh well, what you waiting for?
...it's all right
...'Cause
On Sunday 28 August 2005 01:16 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:17:16 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
I happen to agree
with you... but there are legal arguments to the countrary that seem
to be well excepted among the game industry.
But are they well accepted[1] among courts
is and is not a derivative work, what constitutes
copying, and applicable caselaw, I don't think it is.
But then again, I think the GPL is a contract... so I don't see it as much of
a problem.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student
linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair
w: http://www.probonogeek.org
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh well, what you
eligible for copyright... provided it
meets all the standards of authorship. You're little regex, by the way, is
an excellent example of a program that is not eligible.
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW
is because the GPL is a contract.
The linking clause is a contractual term that you must agree to in order to
receive a copyright license. Pretty standard forbearance.
I know of no legal professional, outside of the FSF, who believes the GPL
stands up as a pure copyright license.
-Sean
--
Sean
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
