Barry Margolin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
copy of the
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
But that's not really a good analogy.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One can download a copy of GPL'd
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept)
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Barry Margolin
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 14:07 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept) directly
to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code
form (both forms are wildly available).
Of course, you don't have to agree when your rights
GNUtian logic in action.
GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 14:07 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept) directly
to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code
form (both forms are
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again...
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The
GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to accept those
additional rights.
quote
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy
(source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in
object code form see above) along with the copy from which such
copies were prepared.
That's not really
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The
GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to accept those
additional rights.
quote source=http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 [cacd.uscourts.gov]
Adobe characterizes each transaction
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:55 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional
copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing),
link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per
Lee Hollaar wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy
(source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in
object code form see above) along with the copy from which such
copies were
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:55 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional
copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing),
link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per
statute.
Folks, read what he
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
those copies unless you are authorized, even if you got the software as
a gift :)
If the author
In this case, it seems that I and the FSF disagree. Prohibiting
staff from distributing free software is the same as a NDA, in my
opinion.
No, it is circumscribing what they can do as agents of the company,
with the property of the company. One very important issue is
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:50:13 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite frankly, I would be surprised if any copyright holder cared
the least whether I ever got around to annotating source code
modules that I don't distribute or whether some program on my
system failed
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 02:52:15 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not what you asked, you asked if you could combine
non-free software with a GPLed work internally. The GPL does not
allow this, so you have no permissions to do so be it for your
private use
18 matches
Mail list logo
