On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
Most of this is focused on contract law issues. I've written a
separate post suggesting the obvious alternative (Tort law)
> > Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license
Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm disputing an argument which seems to require a number of such fine points.
> It is difficult for me to raise such disputes without mentioning the the
> points
> themselves.
>
> Howeve
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
> No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in
> terms of the law that is actually applicable, not a
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in
terms of the law that is actually applicable, not as if the court were
obliged to construe the GPL so that every wor
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'm not going to say that your point of view isn't perfectly valid
> as your own point of view; but I don't have any reason to believe that
> it's a good predictor of how a court case involving the FSF suing
> FooSoft for linking agains
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[an argument, much of which would make sense in a parallel universe
where the GPL is on the law books as 17 USC 666]
I am not a lawyer (or a fortiori a judge), so all that I can do to
explain why this isn't valid legal reasoning is to point you at
On 5/11/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL did not use the word "equals".
> > Neither "that is to say" nor "namely" are equal to "equals".
>
> Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic
> distinctions as claiming that "that is to say" does not conn
[Raul Miller]
> However, I can present my point of view without resorting to this argument:
...
> Does that make sense?
Much clearer, thanks. I was annoyed by the increasingly fine
hair-splitting - thanks for bringing the level back to the realm of the
meaningful.
signature.asc
Description: Di
[Humberto Massa]
> > It had equated the two of them in the first part of the phrase.
[Raul Miller]
> The GPL did not use the word "equals".
> Neither "that is to say" nor "namely" are equal to "equals".
Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic
distinctions as claimi
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >That's another re-statement of what "a work based on the Program"
> >means.
> >
> The GPL just equated the two, before the colon! It states, clearly, that
> the "a work based on the program" is "a derivative work under co
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that "a work based on the Program" is "a derivative work under
copyright law", and then says "that is to say, a work
containing...", which is NOT a re-stateme
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:25:46PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Batist, I think you are mistaken about the meaning of the "any later
> > version" copyright license... the terms are precisely '' This program is
> > free software
I haven't replied in detail to Batist yet because I am still digesting
the hash that Babelfish makes out of his Dutch article. And I don't
entirely agree that the GPL is horribly drafted, by comparison with
the kind of dog's breakfast that is the typical license contract. In
the past, I have trie
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
> that "a work based on the Program" is "a derivative work under
> copyright law", and then says "that is to say, a work
> containing...", which is NOT a re-statement of a "deriv
Batist Paklons wrote:
This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
Raul Miller wrote:
>On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define "work based on the
>>Program" in terms of "derivative work under copyright law", and
>>then, after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what
>>is a "derivative wo
> > On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
> > > contract, one is entitled to contract-law standards of the
> > > reasonableness of one's attempts to cure a breach when notified. The
> > > "automatic term
On 5/7/05, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
> Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
It's really cool to have an actual lawyer weigh in, even if TINLAIAJ. :-)
> On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards
[Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
> contract, one is entitled to contrac
> I don't, except insofar as C - "the Program" attempts to paraphrase E
> - "the Program" (= D).
Oh for Pete's sake, (E - "the Program") (= D). What a great place for
a word wrap.
- Michael
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe you're objecting to the "that is to say" phrase, which restates
> > > what
> > > "work based on the Program": means.
>
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Second sentence in Section 0: The "Program", below, refers to any
> > > such program or work, and a "work based o
On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You may not be qualified (as I am not) to offer legal advice. But
> > you're certainly qualified to have an opinion.
>
> Sure. But it's not relevant to this discussion -- despite what m
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You may not be qualified (as I am not) to offer legal advice. But
> you're certainly qualified to have an opinion.
Sure. But it's not relevant to this discussion -- despite what many of
the participants seem to believe.
> And there isn't
> nec
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > Second sentence in Section 0: The "Program", below, refers to any
> > such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either
> > the Program or any derivative work
On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define "work based on the
> Program" in terms of "derivative work under copyright law", and then,
> after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what is a
> "derivative work under copyright law
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > > > The GPL simply defers to copyright law to define
On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of this discussion of legal minutia misses (and perhaps supports)
> what, to my mind, is the most compelling argument for accepting the
> FSF's position on the subject. The fact is that the question does
> depend on a lot of legal minutia
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ??? Let's try again:
All of this discussion of legal minutia misses (and perhaps supports)
what, to my mind, is the most compelling argument for accepting the
FSF's position on the subject. The fact is that the question does
depend on a lot of legal m
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
> > paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
>
> Who is sorry? How sorry?
>
> Let's assume, for the sake
Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, it tries to define "work based on the Program" in terms
> of "derivative work under copyright law", and then incorrectly
> paraphrases that definition.
It's probably worth noting that "derivative work" and "work based on
the Program" are spelled differently. What's
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
> paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this sorry-ness is not
something that matte
On 5/4/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this. But that's where
this discussion is actually happening now, and I'm afraid I c
33 matches
Mail list logo
