Humberto Massa wrote:
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices, copyright *law* prohibit their
modification.
They are not copyright notices. US law, at least, is very clear and very
explicit about the form a copyright notice must take, and these are
nowhere near it.
And even if you somehow think the
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:01:07AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00209.html
For what it's worth, here's how I would currently answer the questions
you posed there. Of course, I might later decide that I'd missed some
important point, but what t
On 4/15/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip response to someone else's unattributed comments]
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > I've engaged in an extended discussion with the person on the other
> > end of [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom Eben Moglen
> > The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
> > GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Interestingly enough, neither [1] nor [2] mention linking. Which makes
sense since the conditions they describe hold both before and after
linking.
[1
> > Sounds right.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:15:48AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Nope. Compilations (US) / collections (Berne) and derivative works
> are disjoint sets under the Berne Convention (Article 2.5 and 2.3
> respectively) and its national implementations (separate definitions
> i
Glenn Maynard wrote:
By your argumentation, it doesn't seem that this is a decision the
author of the library (or kernel, or whatever) gets to make, but
rather something which is inherent in what's been created; they can
offer their own opinion on what constitutes an application's use of
the librar
On 4/13/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > US copyright italian author's right ("diritto d'autore italiano")
> > --
> > compilation work <--->
On 4/14/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
[snip]
> >There are court cases on point that definitely
> >disagree with you, for example Mirage Editions, Inv. v.
> >Albuquerque ART (cutting a picture out of a book creates a
> >derivative work). Also National
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:43:09PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > > Hmmm. One can argue that the EXPORT_SYMBOL* are copyright
> > > grants, and as such can't be "freely edited", just like the
> > > comments as
> > >
> > > /* this module (C) 1999 Fulana Perez */
> > >
> > > that are in the code. Rem
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 4/14/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
> > GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
> >
> > Now, it's po
> > Hmmm. One can argue that the EXPORT_SYMBOL* are copyright
> > grants, and as such can't be "freely edited", just like the
> > comments as
> >
> > /* this module (C) 1999 Fulana Perez */
> >
> > that are in the code. Removing such comments *is* illegal, and
> > editing EXPORTs can be, too...
Wo
On 4/14/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
> GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
>
> Now, it's possible that they're wrong; there's the obvious theory, for
> example, that they'
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:52AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices, copyright *law* prohibit their
> modification.
Um, but they're *not* copyright notices, no more than this sentence is a
copyright notice. You can't claim that a pizza is a copyright notice
and h
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:02:36AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> So am I (altough I *am* a para, after all). This does not
> preclude him from being right, does it?
Nope, as I mentioned. You just seemed to put special weight on his
opinion on the topic.
> >Now, it's possible that they're wrong
> > That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
> > collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
> > there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
> > the parts. The creation of works that "can be linked together"
> > is not protected by copyright:
David Schwartz wrote:
>>That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
>>collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology.
>>If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and
>>ordering the parts. The creation of works that "can be
>>linked together" is not protected by
> That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
> collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
> there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
> the parts. The creation of works that "can be linked together"
> is not protected by copyright: the liter
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>>
>>It would be, if the license said it was. As it happens, the license
>>makes no mention of this, but does give explicit permission to make
>>any modifications desired.
>>
>>
>
> If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices,
But are th
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It would be, if the license said it was. As it happens, the license
makes no mention of this, but does give explicit permission to make
any modifications desired.
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices, copyright *law* prohibit their
modification.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
> >Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>>If you make a kernel module that only uses something
> >>>EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
> >>>writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYM
Måns Rullgård wrote:
>Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>If you make a kernel module that only uses something
>>>EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
>>>writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
>>>symbols, then you are incurring in (b) above and
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:18:46AM -0300, Humberto Massa
>wrote:
>
>>> Then all the people who think that creating a binary
>>>kernel module requires creating a derivative work and hence
>>>can be restricted by the GPL are wrong. Take that argument
>>>up with them.
>>
>>I t
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you make a kernel module that only uses something
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
>> writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
>> symbols, then you are incurring in (b) above and your kernel
>> module
> > What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed
> > to see the EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:21:42PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> It is enforcable and is called a rolling contract. Seminal case is ProCD,
> Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Circut, 1996).
That pr
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:18:46AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> >Then all the people who think that creating a binary
> >kernel module requires creating a derivative work and hence
> >can be restricted by the GPL are wrong. Take that argument
> >up with them.
>
> I took. Google my name on l
David Schwartz wrote:
>> >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
>> >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
>
>
>>No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
>>non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a
>>collective work where the real intellectually-nove
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 10:13 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > What compels you to agree with an EULA?
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire
> > lawful possession of the work.
>
> What about cases
> > What compels you to agree with an EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire
> lawful possession of the work.
What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed
to see the EU
> > [2] I don't think you can construe this paraphrase of the GPL authors
> > claims as meaning that a person using that grant is free to ignore the
> > conditions imposed by the GPL.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:49:44PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Not quite sure what you mean hear... but I do kno
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> US copyright italian author's right ("diritto d'autore italiano")
> --
> compilation work <---> collective work ("opera collettiva")
> derivative
This thread should probably get moved off-list soon, it's like
beating the dead horse long after its flesh has decayed and its
bones disintegrated to dust.
On Apr 13, 2005, at 21:54, David Schwartz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Yes, the GPL can give you righ
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A
> > EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have.
> What compels you to agree with an EULA?
If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do no
> >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
> >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
> No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
> non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective
> work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select
> w
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 03:09 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > > Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
> > > > acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No
> > > > acceptance, no contract, no
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:53:43 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
> The definitions overlap.
[...]
> But collective works that have their own copyright are derivative
> works, and derivative works that have more than one original work are
> collective works.
Thanks for the clarification.
In its light, I'm co
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
> > > acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance,
> > > no contract, no exceptions.
> On Wednesday 13 April 2005 06:55 am, Raul Miller
Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 06:55 am, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance,
no contract, no exceptio
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 06:55 am, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
> > acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance,
> > no contract, no exceptions.
>
>
< Not copied to the overloaded linux-kernel list >
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance,
which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no
contrac
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance,
> which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no
> contract, no exceptions.
False.
For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by ex
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
>
> > > Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
> > > upheld in the USA.
> > > If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
>
> > http://www.freibr
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10:46 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
> In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson
> & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as
> Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000)
> is that the presence of a click-th
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:57:29AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > The law talks about collective
> > works and derivative works, and to a casual reader it appears as
> > though collective works are in some way different from derivative
> > works.
>
> Why?
> Are collective works and derivative wo
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the
> agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before
> purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement.
http:
Francesco Poli wrote:
I think it is: Italy *is* a member of the Berne Convention and
consequently cannot have an author's right law that differs too much
from other ones in the Berne Convention area (AFAIK)...
Italy signed Berne in 1887, and became a party to Berne 1971 in 1979. I
would expect
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:43:20 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:21:40AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > In Italian author's right law ("legge sul diritto d'autore"), there
> > is no use of or definition for the term "derivative work", AFAICS.
> >
> > The law speak
> > > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
> > Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
> > upheld in the USA.
> > If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
> http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm
This wasn't a
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A
> EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have.
What compels you to agree with an EULA?
> In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses
> a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No, I would not.
Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not
creative.
The copyrig
David Schwartz wrote:
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to
>>> agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If
>>> you were able to create the derivative work under first
>>> sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the
>>> contract
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
>
> Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the
> USA.
> If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
http://www.freibrunlaw.com/article
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work,
> > > e.g. an image
> > > of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you
> > > distribute
> > > that image freely?
> > I would say that if not for the EULA, yo
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership
> > of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of
> > Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise,
> > y
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
> > license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
> > the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
> > restrictions in the contract would not apply to yo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work,
> > e.g. an image
> > of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you
> > distribute
> > that image freely?
>
> I would say that if not for the EULA, you could tra
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership
> of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of
> Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise,
> you could no
David Schwartz wrote:
>>David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you buy a
>>W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an
>>image of your installation, under the fair use rights
>>(IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely?
>>
>
>I would say that if not for the EULA, you co
> David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
> >>derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
> >>for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
> >>that is conditional on how th
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
>
>> (I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright
>> law is not phrased in terms of "derived" - or that have
>> several native words which are given different explicit
>> meaning by the local law but would
David Schwartz wrote:
This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
restrictions in the contract would not apply to you.
The only way to *c
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> > (I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright law is not
> > phrased in terms of "derived" - or that have several native words
> > which are given different explicit meaning by the local law but would
> > all need to be repr
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> (I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright law is not
> phrased in terms of "derived" - or that have several native words
> which are given different explicit meaning by the local law but would
> all need to be represented a
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
> bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware
> either.
This point is a controversial point. Different people make different
claims.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright
> holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can
> cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't*
> mention distri
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you
> could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there
> is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you
> to withhold from m
> > You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could
> > it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is
> > no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to
> > withhold from me.
> Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some act
David Schwartz writes:
>>Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
>>derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
>>for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
>>that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute
Michael Poole wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not
di
Humberto Massa writes:
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
>> >> by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
>> >> work of your work and they ha
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative
work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with "ld" is
completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm
not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it see
Henning Makholm wrote:
As far as I can see you are assuming that it is either "a derived
work" or "mere aggregation", and cannot be both or neither. You then
That is because copyright law classifies them this way.
try to argue that because it is not a derived work, it must me a mere
aggregation.
David Schwartz wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
>> by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
>> work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first
>> place
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
David Schwartz writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> > Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit
>> > you to restrict
>> > the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to
>> > restrict the
>> > distribution of lawfully created
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit
> > you to restrict
> > the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to
> > restrict the
> > distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees
> > The GPL applies to distributing a Linux binary I just made even
> > though nobody ever chose to apply the GPL to the binary I just made
> > only because the binary I just made is a derivative work of the
> > Linux kernel, and the authors of that work chose to apply the GPL to
> > it.
> How ca
On Sunday 10 April 2005 01:18 pm, David Schwartz wrote:
> You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could it
> do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is no right
> to control the distribution of derivative works for you to withhold from
> me.
and
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit you to restrict
> the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to restrict the
> distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees of the
> or
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
>> > this is not that tricky at all, and that the "mere
>> > aggregation" clau
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Yes I would. Linking forms a tighter coupling than just placing the
>> two parts side by side on a filesystem designed for general storage of
>> byte streams. There is more to say about t
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains
>> part of the original author's copyrighted work and therefore can only
>> legally be copied with the permission of the author.
> The way you stop someone from distributing
Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> >Yes I would. Linking forms a tighter coupling than just
> >placing the two parts side by side on a filesystem designed
> >for general storage of byte streams. There is more to say
> >about the situation than the naked fact
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The way you stop someone from distributing part of your
> > work is by arguing
> > that the work they are distributing is a derivative work of
> > your work and
> > they had no right to *make* it in the first place. See, fo
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Every book in my book shelf is software?
>
> If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
--
Giusepp
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and
David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply):
> > >> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> > >> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> > >
> Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> >> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> >> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
> >> point is that distribut
> > It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
> the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a on
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If Debian was at least consistent.
> >
> > Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> > than RedHat?
>
> It's impossible to treat patents
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
>> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
>> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
>> point is that distribution of the
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on natural laws,
> on stuff that's already patented, on stuff with clear prior art, on
> trivial math operations and so on. Patents are being granted so quickly
> there's no way of
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:40:59 -0500 Jordan Abel wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2005 2:44 AM, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > > Wrong! It is perfectly legal in the United States, and I'm pretty
> > > sure in your country, to di
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:44:59 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > patents are problematic, and upto recently there where no software
> > patents in europe, so i don't really care. I am not sure about the
>
> AFAIK software patents are still not effective in Europe (as in you
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on nat
> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
> point is that distribution of the linked _result_ is nevertheless
> subject to the c
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>> GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
>
> Assuming you have an online connection and a frie
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
> > enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
>
> How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operat
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > > but t
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > > firmwares in the
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > but to a court.
>
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a m
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
