[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Burditt) writes:
> What *is* the source code to music? A non-DRM'd, non-encrypted copy
> of the music?
I would say that the score is the equivalent of the source code, the
mixing details being like build instructions and the performance being
the equivalent of the compi
Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No: This was even covered in GPL2:
>
> 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
> certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
> original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
> m
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
> explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
> were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?
No. Because copyright law would not a
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
> software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
> (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
> you have access to the copy (you h
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about "licensee" don't you understand?
The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. I can see
nothing in the GPL which states that. On contrary the preamble states
t
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to do
> with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to you.
> Since you have not bought or otherwise acquired ownership of the copy,
> you don't get the rights associated w
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD
>> containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not
>> entitled to make a copy of t
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful copies
> is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright holder can
> grant.
GPL or otherwise, is the copyright holder not the only person who
*can* give permission to make c
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Once again, I do NOT have to be the owner of the CD to accept the
> license.
I agree. Section 2, in the part about the notice to be displayed on
interactive programs, further reinforces this.
"c) If the modified program normally reads commands in
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only in the very specific case of programs that normally read commands
> interactively, and if they have been modified ("If the _modified_
> program _normally reads commands interactively_"). The beginning of the
> clause is very specific, so you're
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into
> contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by
> the FSF itself.
Do you not agree that section 2 states that the users of modified[0]
programs which accept com
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The fact is that the GPL price-fixes IP at zero. The fact is that
> zero is below cost of IP creation and hence is predatory. As for the
> rest,
The GPL does not fix the price of anything. It gives freedoms in the
sense of a 'free man' not in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Burditt) writes:
> Now, I, Evil Bill Fence Door, copyright this patch, sell it with
> onerous copy protection, and for $1,000,000 a copy. The license
> that comes with it prohibits re-distribution of the patch. Note
> that I'm *not* re-distributing any GPL-licensed soft
13 matches
Mail list logo
