On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote:
In a nightmare one can imagine large numbers of
cover texts in one manual, but it isn't likely to happen. Where the
BSD advertising clause produced a mountain, the GFDL produces a
molehill.
At least one situation comes
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 23:21 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
Not all: the terms of section 3 talk about covered source code in very
broad terms of all modules [the work] contains. Can you expand on
your understanding of this phrase?
Section 3 reads, in part:
You may copy and
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Bah, there's no copyright in those lists; just like there's no copyright
in the listings of the phone book.
Please attack and destroy people with _Feist v. Rural Telephone Service
Co._[1].
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm
I filed an ITP recently for stumbleupon, and have been talking with the
upstream author about a suitable license for the mozilla toolbar. Im
not an expert on legal or license related issues, so I'm posting here
for some advice/suggestions. Basicaly this is what the upstream author said:
On 2003-05-28 20:21:55 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Bah, there's no copyright in those lists; just like there's no copyright
in the listings of the phone book.
Phone book data _is_ copyrighted in Germany.
Best regards
Martin
--
Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have,
Anthony DeRobertis said:
(Sec. 201(a)):
Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially
in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint
work are coowners of copyright in the work.
So, I wonder, how many open-source works qualify as joint works?
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:19:45PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
...
In Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.,[0] the
court held that a menu structure is method of
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:42:53PM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
On 2003-05-28 20:21:55 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Bah, there's no copyright in those lists; just like there's no copyright
in the listings of the phone book.
Phone book data _is_ copyrighted in Germany.
But it shouldn't
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 03:02:58AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
(Sec. 101):
''joint work'' is a work prepared by two or more authors
with the intention that their contributions be merged
into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.
[...]
So, I wonder,
Steve Langasek wrote:
It is not mere aggregation, for the same reason that a bug in a
library that makes it unusable by applications is a grave, not a
critical, bug: one piece of software is not unrelated to another if
the former depends on the latter.
Ah, I get what I was missing earlier... so
I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that
this is not a new restriction to the GPL?
I see that phpnuke is still in main in testing and
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that
this is not a new restriction to
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Martin Schulze wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian)
buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the
bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that
this is not a new restriction to the GPL?
There was
Hello
I would like to package a php4-rrdtool from wnpp[1]. I noticed that
this software has IMO incomplete licence.
Full README file is available at:
http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/rrdtool/pub/contrib/php4-rrdtool-1.03.txt
Interesting part about copyright below.
You are free to
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 11:57:18AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Jakob Bohm said:
Anyway, I thought the common GPL linking claim was that the
runtime in-memory process image includes a copy of the GPL code
and is thus a derivative of that copy.
But this derivative (if you assume that it is
Hi Artur R. Czechowski,
Hello
I would like to package a php4-rrdtool from wnpp[1]. I noticed that this
software has IMO incomplete licence. Full README file is available at:
http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/rrdtool/pub/contrib/php4-rrdtool-1.03.txt
Interesting part about
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 07:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think one coowner would be able to change the license terms of the
work as a whole without the consent of the other coowners.
He can. That's one of the things it being a joint work instead of a
collective work means.
Any author of
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 20:00, Jakob Bohm wrote:
However the main point of my post was not that. My main point
was that in Borland vs. Lotus, the issue placed before the court
was the right to *re-implement* a compatible interface, not the
right to implement things that *use* the interface.
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 19:26, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
I will contact upstream to fix this licence but first I would like to know
your opinion: what should I propose to the author as the new licence?
MIT/X11: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
(new) BSD:
--- Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセ
ージ：
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:42:53PM +0200, Martin
Schr#65533;er wrote:
On 2003-05-28 20:21:55 -0500, Branden Robinson
wrote:
Bah, there's no copyright in those lists; just
like there's no copyright
in the listings of the phone book.
--- Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセ
ージ：
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 03:02:58AM -0400, Anthony
DeRobertis wrote:
(Sec. 101):
''joint work'' is a work prepared by two or more
authors
with the intention that their contributions be
merged
into inseparable or
--- Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッ
セージ：
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on
19.05.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How different are things really on the Continent?
Is *everthing* codified?
[...]
The important point being drawn out here is that the
common law (U.S. U.K. et
Package: ftp.debian.org
At http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00164.html
ff., the debian-legal mailing list discusses PHPNuke, which is nominally
under the GPL but whose author has made additional statements regarding
the meaning of the GPL for his app. Consensus
23 matches
Mail list logo
