Speaking of people who will be pretty pissed when it turns out that
Eben Moglen has been bullshitting about the legal meaning of the GPL
all along:
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/2216239tid=147
But for better or for worse, Mr. Wallace doesn't seem to have a
terribly firm
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is your mistake: it's not the pages that carry protection, it's
the words and illustrations on the pages (as in abstract,
intelectual entities) that carry protection.
I thought copyright was protection for creative
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oferchrissake. Existing case law with respect to copyright _licenses_
is always, always, always based on contract law (in the US, anyway).
Would you do me the courtesy of at least correctly stating the
argument that you are attempting to
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You inverted the do more and do less. Publishing an arbitrary set of
anthologies is do more as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute permission to
Raul Miller wrote:
It's been suggested that existing case law with respect to copyrights
always is based on contract law, and that the GPL can only be
understood in terms of contract law.
(...)
However, there is the other option: Tort Law.
I don't know and I won't try to figure out if your
Raul Miller writes:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You inverted the do more and do less. Publishing an arbitrary set of
anthologies is do more as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute
Used Rolex Watch
http://consecutively.nlav.com/rep/vron/Diplodocus.html
Mens and Ladies Rolex Watches
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/12/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute permission to distribute binaries. The principle
under Brazilian law seems to be that restrictions on distribution of
sources
Just in case anyone was worried about this issue:
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it should be possible to treat the GPL as if an implicit contract
had been signed, and proceed from there, and the damages inflicted
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You inverted the do more and do less. Publishing an arbitrary set
of
anthologies is do more as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Federal copyright law presumes irreparable harm from the
infringement of a copyright. See Cadence Design Systems,
125 F.3d at 826-27.
Exactly.
--
Raul
On 12 May 2005 09:46:28 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the apology. Would you consider posting a short outline
of how you would rebut the argument in general, rather than getting
annoyed writing a point-by-point demolition? I'd ignore any you
can't answer everything you cut
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I don't
think so.
#include stdio.h
int main(int, char**) {
puts(Hi); return 0;
}
What is a dynamically
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All copyright _licenses_ (in the US, anyway) are terms in contracts.
This does seem to be your main thesis.
You have not provided any reason to believe that this generalization
must hold in all cases.
Instead, you've been using the full
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I
don't think so.
#include stdio.h
int main(int, char**)
{
puts(Hi);
return 0;
}
What is a
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will do my repeated assertion act: It's a dynamically linked
executable, for the love of $DEITY!
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative effort that went
into
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will do my repeated assertion act: It's a dynamically linked
executable, for the love of $DEITY!
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative effort that went
into them is the selection and arrangement of their contents.
DY-NA-MI-CA-LLY. It
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip arguments which appear, on a somewhat cursory reading, to be 100% correct]
Ok. Now (again) back to the libssl problem.
Is a daemon dx.c that when compiled, links with libsnmp, and
indirectly with libssl, a derivative work of any of
Raul Miller wrote:
The working hello_world program is a collection.
This program (hello_world) taken in isolation will not perform.
This is irrelevant. Its creative status independs of its performance.
You are saying that hello_world in isolation will not perform. Neither
will the debian
On 5/12/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or he could consult a law book, of course. I don't bother with
citations to Nimmer on Copyright or Corbin on Contracts or whatever
except when I find them quoted in a court opinion,
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I was not talking about distributing the working hello_world
(if you are referring to the working set of it in RAM, after loaded --
after all, this is the only thing that performs when a file is dynalinked)
Note also that all of the
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Note that your argument contains correct logic but incorrect facts.
libsnmp is more or less BSD licensed (
http://www.net-snmp.org/about/license.html ). It is Quagga that is
GPL'ed. Substitute, say, a GPL'ed HTTP client library in place of
libsnmp, and it's all good.
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I was not talking about distributing the working hello_world
(if you are referring to the working set of it in RAM, after loaded --
after all, this is the only thing that
As I tire of swatting flies with a Howitzer (TM), and have been
neglecting important work in favor of this debate, I will be taking a
bit of a sanity break. (And a sigh of relief was heard across the
land.)
Cheers,
- Michael
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This doesn't do anything for the distributor of copyright infringing
software. 17 USC 117 only protects users of that software.
Stipulate that, _contrary_to_law_, we read mere aggregation to mean
_only_ on storage media and _only_ at
Frankly, Raul, anyone who believes your reading of the Progress
Software v. MySQL decision deserves what he or she gets.
Cheers,
- Michael
Just to clear the air, here's some mistakes I'm aware of making today:
(1) I thought the Progress Software v. MySQL case was still pending.
While I've not found a formal statement to this effect, I've since
read that the case settled out of court.
(2) I incorrectly assumed that the gender of
28 matches
Mail list logo
