Brian T. Sniffen said on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:15:12AM -0500,:
enumerated in US legislation -- they are alluded to in some laws, and
mentioned in court cases, but intentionally underspecified.
'Law' is what the courts say it is. May be, the US legal system has a
different view of the
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:13:59AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Title 17 USC, Sec. 106.
Look at GPL 2(b) to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License. You get your license to use a
GPL program when:
1) The program is licensed that
On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 10:35, Glenn Maynard wrote:
What about GPL #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 copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and
Anthony == Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 10:35, Glenn Maynard wrote:
What about GPL #6? Each time you redistribute the Program (or
any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ On 2003-11-15 04:14:44 + Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ wrote:
It only revokes the patent license, not the whole license.
Since Debian, to a large extent, only concerns itself with
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:32:09AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I think people are a lot more savvy about patent-related problems now
than they were 4 years ago, but it would be a pain to fix this now if
we got it wrong.
[...]
I find it interesting that copyright licences that try to enforce
On 2003-11-14 14:57:58 + Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What prevents me, after violating the license, from obtaining a new
copy
of the software and using (copying, modifying, distributing) that
instead?
As long as you've stopped the attempt, have not distributed any
infringing
On 2003-11-15 04:14:44 + Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It only revokes the patent license, not the whole license. Since
Debian, to a large extent, only concerns itself with patents that are
being enforced, it was considered fine [1]. There was even a comment
praising the patent
Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm trying to grok the last paragraph of Henning Makholm's
comments in your first reference at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199906/msg00218.html
Good luck. :-)
As my recent comments in the present thread may have indicated, I'm
On 2003-11-14 02:21:18 + Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, you have precedent against you. The IBM Common Public
License has just such a clause
It seems that this particular aspect (actions unrelated to the work
affecting the right to use the work) was not covered in
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:32:09AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
While considering that, I noticed something that seems odd. There
seems to be nothing to prevent a litigator from obtaining a new copy
of the software and using that instead. The new patent licence grant
isn't conditional on not
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-11-14 02:21:18 + Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, you have precedent against you. The IBM Common Public
License has just such a clause
It seems that this particular aspect (actions unrelated to the work
affecting the
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then
any patent licenses granted by that Contributor to You under
this License shall
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then
any patent licenses granted by that
14 matches
Mail list logo
