On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote to Jeremy Hankins:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
[I'm taking this off-list, as this is no longer really relevant
there.]
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When FSF include Sun RPC code, that code was licensed to FSF under
Sun RPC license,
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely
irrelevant to
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not
contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new
original work of authorship.
If that is the
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
confused (which, as always, is
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
originality in the work
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable.
Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality
involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc
code? I don't see how that's relevant.
Sorry.
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry. I was very unclear.
SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from
GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not
GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore,
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL
guarantees me that the
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry. I was very unclear.
SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from
GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
reinvention.
We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example.
That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then
either you've copied, or there's a lack of
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
originality in the work to start with.
I thought I'd been following
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:13:04PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of someone
incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing it to a
second person, who subsequently refines this work to create yet another
work which happens
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:13:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example.
That's the point: if you come up with the exact
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
...
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
^^
Um, where in the world can *ideas* be
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of
someone incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing
it to a second person, who subsequently refines this work to create
yet another work which happens to be identical to the
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
Utah :-)
Richard Braakman
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:51, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:03:13PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
Utah :-)
Not what you had in mind, but damnit, now I'm going to have to go watch
_Raising Arizona_ again.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe',
but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
things that you can
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
reinvention. For
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
reinvention. For bonus points make it an
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Nor is Not being able to change
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications
only taking into account a few random
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
the GPL, which include (in part 2) the
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:27:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And
their intentions are: MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this
product alone.
I'm not particularly convinced it's not compatible with the GPL, either.
If you're trying to distribute the product alone, then the GPL
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that
everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the
GPL.
This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that
everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the
GPL.
This
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
From this I can conclude that I need to be able to distribute any
given component of the glibc source code under the GPL.
Which isn't correct.
You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of
the GPL,
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that
everything you include in
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:45:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
You can distribute the end product under the GPL. You cannot remove
fsf-funding and distribute the result.
But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Consider, as another example, the following program:
#!/bin/sh
# Capital-AJ version 1.0
# Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# All rights reserved
find /foo -type f | grep 'aj' |
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to
preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless
Debian itself is developing the product or program using Sun RPC.
Which we are, viz The
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:15:57PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
An abbreviated form of the
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:45:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
By contrast, modifying the program to look exactly like another one, say
the source code to Windows solitaire, is already prohibited by copyright
Not always.
--
G. Branden Robinson|It was a typical net.exercise
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
However as it stands, the license passes the DFSG at least as
well as, eg, the Artistic license does.
I humbly submit that only the GPL and BSD licenses pass the DFSG
as well as the Artistic license does.
10. Example Licenses
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc
source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL,
It's not appropriate to
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc
source tree, presumably
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
A distributes a program developed by A based on Sun RPC to B. B
cannot turn around distribute the program to C unless they repackage
it as a product or program developed by B.
This isn't the case: A may license or distribute it to anyone [..]
as
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc
source tree, presumably
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:02:59PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
in question has been
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:22:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code
in question has been highly
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:08:30PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional
restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? Otherwise, I don't see how
you can claim it is compatible.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:38:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The same text appears in the GPL.
If you're really going to argue that the code in question cannot be
reasonably considered independent, the original license clause is a
no-op. Why are you worried about what the license says
48 matches
Mail list logo
