* Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050519 19:52]:
Moral rights only allow you to act against mutilation of
the work and lack of proper attribution. And you have the right
to decide on _first_ publication. But once you publish, the
work is on the market and your rights are exhausted. I
O Mércores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ás 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escribía:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL. About the only thing that can be done is
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
O M?rcores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ?s 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escrib?a:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL. About the only thing
O Xoves, 19 de Maio de 2005 ás 19:52:28 +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet escribía:
That's an aspect of EU copyright law I'm not aware of. Can you
tell me which Berne provision or EU directive this is?
Please, next time just say directly that's not so and it'll be easier on
my health. Thanks.
And
On 19/05/05, Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spanish law says (the ugly translation is mine): The following
un-disclaimable and inaliable rights belong to the author: [...] 6. Retiring
the work from the market, due to a change in their intellectual or moral
convictions, after a payment
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Point taken. However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in
section 6:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the FSF FAQ.
For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false.
It is, in places, a bit
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the FSF FAQ.
For the record, I disagree that this
On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Thanks, Roberto. The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in
Hello,
(Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but)
>From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time,
NullSoft did infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL
(NullSoft's parent company) didn't like this, and that message on
NullSoft's website is because of
This topic has been beat to death and is the cause for most of the
devs bailing throughout the life of the project (legal concerns).
There are a couple old articles on /. that should cover all the
arguments (in the comments)...but I'm sure you'll find them all over.
here's one:
Hello,
Yes, you are correct. I am assuming that.
As far as I can tell, even if AOL didn't approve it, NullSoft, being
the owners of the code, are allowed and able to release the code
under whatever license they want to release it under. (Whether
they'll get in trouble or not from AOL, for doing
[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]
It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so. And then tried
to take things back. But the GPL doesn't allow for that.
It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes for
a postulate just because the FSF said so. Rather like the assumption
Peter Samuelson wrote:
I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably
this is grounded on the basis of her having received no
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL.
There are some exceptions to this. For example, if you're not the
On 5/18/05, Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably
this is grounded on the
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the
Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable
for any serious deployment. Note, however, that but it *can't*
17 matches
Mail list logo
