On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
On 06/10/2012 10:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said, Bruce. You even
said 'Read caselaw.'
I think we need to come to grips to the fact that it may be possible for GPL
software
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
On 06/10/2012 10:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said, Bruce. You
even said 'Read caselaw.'
I think we need to come to grips to the fact that it may be possible
for GPL software to be embedded within a
On 06/11/2012 12:18 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
To be clear, NuSphere did not embed MySQL in their product, rather
they embedded closed source components into MySQL
Per Eben's testimony, the Gemini storage engine, using the MySQL API for
storage engines.
Which would be a funny relevation after a
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
On 06/11/2012 12:18 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
To be clear, NuSphere did not embed MySQL in their product, rather they
embedded closed source components into MySQL
Per Eben's testimony, the Gemini storage engine, using the
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
What legal theory would make a user of an API a derivative work if the API
is not itself copyrightable?
If there was a case like MySQL v. Nusphere without the contract, this
is what I'd argue. Note I'd avoid saying
On 06/11/2012 12:52 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
{scratches head} I think you must somehow be massively misreading what
I said. Perhaps you thought I'd expressed a view about using an API
(somehow) creating a derivative work? I didn't say anything of the sort.
It's regarding your statement:
it
On 05/06/12 17:59, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
I don't think that the inclusion of MPL 2.0 in any way a bad decision.
My assumption is that the Steward of the MPL requested that all
significant references to the the MPL be modified to point to the new
version. Similarly, the original list included
Gervase Markham wrote:
I'd add that, given that the MPL 2 is used by both Mozilla and LibreOffice,
two very substantial projects, I'd say it pretty much fits the criteria on
its own merits even without support from the large body of MPL 1.1+ software
out there.
I fully agree with the general
On 6/8/12 12:16 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents are still
professing willful ignorance as to why some permissive developers see a
difference between the two practices. Go figure.
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL proponent', sir.
This conflict has always been between certain factions of the GPL camp and
certain factions of the BSD camp whatever you wish to identify yourself as.
I am not a member of
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:39:06PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Anyway, as I just got through saying to Ben Tilly: (1) People
can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to
perform with their own property. (2) You should take care to understand
all of the implications
On 6/11/12 3:39 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL proponent', sir.
This conflict has always been between certain factions of the GPL camp
and
certain factions of the BSD camp whatever
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do not confuse me with some
bunch of ideologue wankers.
What was the
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 03:20:12PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do not
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
These are generally exceptional cases that require either copyright
assignment or carefully controlled maintenance of contribution records
and continued contact with contributors. In cases where contributions to
the
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
Seeing these repeated references to my name is getting annoying.
This seems a little odd. All I said was that I'd recently made that
observation to you -- which was factually correct and certainly not
any offence to you or anyone else.
You like to
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Anyway, as I just got through saying to Ben Tilly: (1) People
can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to
perform with their own property. (2) You should take care to understand
all of the
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
Can you name a single case where a US court has said that if literal
copying of code is required for interoperability of practical software
or other practical tools (printer cartridges, garage door openers,
etc), that this gives the copyright
On 06/09/2012 01:53 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
Read caselaw. I'm done.
I'm glad Rick's done. There is a good chance that you, not Rick, are
right. Recent case law is that APIs are bright lines between separate
works and that connections across APIs do not create derivative works.
And this is
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
I'm glad Rick's done. There is a good chance that you, not Rick, are
right. Recent case law is that APIs are bright lines between
separate works and that connections across APIs do not create
derivative works. And this is regardless of the way software
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
Nowhere in these do I see any indication that mere inclusion of one
work in another creates derivation.
You will not find a simple acid test there or anywhere else. And yet,
Just one point in support of Rick's assertion here.
My points as I stated I think clearly, are under the assumption that a
court would look at the GPL v2 and try to map it directly to
compiled/collected works (license allows without regard to license of
other components) and derivative works
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
Not exclusively. I cited cases (Lexmark, Sony, etc) where expressive
elements were included without permission but this was held to be de
minimis (Lexmark) or fair use (Sony, Galoob), or allowed on other
grounds.
Yes, affirmative defences and
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:09:47PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Chad Perrin scripsit:
Is have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process really
a requirement for being an open source license, or is that
Quoting Chuck Swiger (ch...@codefab.com):
What is a matter of concern is when someone removes a copyright statement
and the BSD license terms from source code
Obviously both abhorrent and illegal, irrespective of anything that follows.
I'm thinking of the g4u vs g4l situation.
You may
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
On 06/08/2012 08:55 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents [...]
Not a positive contribution.
Factually mistaken premise, too.
There are simple economic justifications for using a
sharing-with-rules license
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
I don't think so. When we look at the case where this was raised as a
controversy (a wireless driver in Linux taken from, iirc OpenBSD), the
allegation was actually that no derivative work was created. The code
was just included wholesale and
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
[...]
However if someone downstream re-releases under a copyleft license,
there is essentially no chance of changes downstream of that ever
being re-released under a permissive license that can be reintegrated
back into the original project.
To be
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
True, which is why I have sought out law review articles and case law.
I would think that a case like MySQL v. Nusphere if it came up today
would still be a case of first impression, would it not? I haven't
yet found a
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
Is there actually such a thing as copyright sublicensing? I suspect not.
In which case purporting to sublicense an unchanged copy of a work
is usurping the copyright owner's right to control the license, and
likewise for a copy whose changes are
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:18 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Rick Moen scripsit:
I keep hearing a limited group of people speaking of this alleged tort
('purporting to sublicense'), but fail to find it in copyright law.
Is there actually such a thing as copyright sublicensing? I
On Jun 7, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
My surmise is that the thing being referred to as '{sublicensing|relicensing}
of BSD works' is in fact stating the licensing for a derivative.
Probably. My own opinion is that folks who do anything less than a substantial
rewrite of software ought
I don't think that the inclusion of MPL 2.0 in any way a bad decision. My
assumption is that the Steward of the MPL requested that all significant
references to the the MPL be modified to point to the new version.
Similarly, the original list included both the CPL and the EPL. When the CPL
was
Luis Villa writes:
The following Open Source licenses are popular, widely used, or
have strong communities:
As long as that list remains, I will object. It is inaccurate, incomplete,
misleading, subject to cronyism and personal bias by members of the OSI
board of directors, and does not
35 matches
Mail list logo
