On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 00:01 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00137.html
quote author=RMS
The crucial point is that when we release a program under the GPL,
we do not claim that all possessors of a copy have agreed to any
contract with us.
Isaac wrote:
[...]
don't agree with his conclusions involving first sale,
Well,
http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00137.html
quote author=RMS
The crucial point is that when we release a program under the GPL,
we do not claim that all possessors of a copy have agreed to any
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:23:33 +0200, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is
compatible with it. It
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is
compatible with it. It might not be so under jursidiction of the GNU
Republic (where only Mr President Stallman knows and rules what is
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 10:57 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
First sale aside for a moment, GPL is a bare copyright license. When
you merely combine works, you create compilations, not derivative
works. The former is also known as mere aggregation. Got it now?
Well, apart from the fact that
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is
compatible with it. It might not be so under jursidiction of the GNU
Republic (where only Mr
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is
compatible with it. It might not be so under jursidiction of the GNU
Republic (where only Mr President Stallman knows and rules what is
compatible), but who cares?
This
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/xmp/sdk/license.txt
I suspect it isn't due to the following ...
If you choose to distribute the Software in a commercial product, you
do so with the understanding that you agree to defend, indemnify and
hold harmless Adobe
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
But you can't MAKE COPIES of YOUR copy
Sure I can. Work is GPL'd and publicly available.
I admit making copies. What's the problem?
and (re)DISTRIBUTE them unless you have distribution rights.
17 USC 109.
regards,
alexander.
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 16:40 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
But you can't MAKE COPIES of YOUR copy
Sure I can. Work is GPL'd and publicly available.
I admit making copies. What's the problem?
Well, English 101: the phrase ends on the period.
and
Rui Miguel Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 14:18 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
Because those that have somewhat more insight, see that your
arguments do not apply, because you're talking of a radically
different concept (first sale
11 matches
Mail list logo
