O Mércores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ás 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escribía:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL. About the only thing that can be done is
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:09:12AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Logically, the process used here is more complex than that used by
gunzip, but effect is similar.
If nothing else, 17 USC 117 and dynamic linking absolutely protect you
Hello.
Please accept my apologies if I am flogging a dead horse. I have ST*W
but I cannot find a definitive solution to this problem. I did find a
thread [1] on debian-legal from last year but it had more questions
than answers ;-)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00236.html
Achieve stronger and harder erections
http://www.prumie.net/ss/
World first Patch Technology for penis Enlargement
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
technology. Unfortunately, the company's trademark guide makes the
following restrictions on the use of the trademark:
(1) the product (i.e. the Linux kernel) must display the trademark on
the splash screen (or in the About... box);
(2) the trademark must appear in all
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This absolute protection did not seem to protect Napster, nor did
the home recording act.
Despite their claims to the contrary, Napster's *primary function* was to
facilitate the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. That is
Nicholas Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What terms could we accept?
Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
Can we accept the restriction that any modification to the product
must, at a minimum, first strip the
MJ Ray wrote:
Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
I think it would be helpful if the driver was named after the
technology. If the bluetooth driver was named harold and the trident
driver named poseidon it would
On 5/19/05, Nicholas Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The company in question is willing to negotiate terms for a trademark
license that is agreeable to all parties. Obviously any advertising or
guarantee restrictions are unacceptable to us. Unlimited use of the
trademark is unacceptable to
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
it should be legal to name it driver for X. (Of course, what is legal and
what keeps you from getting sued aren't nececssarily the same.)
On 5/19/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
it should be legal to name it driver for X. (Of course, what is legal and
what keeps
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:16:10AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This absolute protection did not seem to protect Napster, nor did
the home recording act.
Despite their claims to the contrary, Napster's *primary function* was to
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
O M?rcores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ?s 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escrib?a:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL. About the only thing
For more observations on the legal basis for finding a derivative work
where no literal copying has taken place, see Palladium Music v.
EatSleepMusic at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/10th/046061.html . For GPL
purposes, it is significant that Palladium's copyrights were held
invalid
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No matter what the court ruled about Napster's CD ripping/copying ability,
that's not what they originally got in trouble for. They got in trouble for
making it easy for people to trade MP3's, by maintaining a repository of
illegal music
In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder,
and didn't even have have license.
That doesn't seem very interesting.
--
Raul
Distribute does not mean bits on the wire.
It means something more like make available, though it also has
implications of releasing control.
http://google.com/search?q=define%3Adistribute
--
Raul
O Xoves, 19 de Maio de 2005 ás 19:52:28 +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet escribía:
That's an aspect of EU copyright law I'm not aware of. Can you
tell me which Berne provision or EU directive this is?
Please, next time just say directly that's not so and it'll be easier on
my health. Thanks.
And
I'm not at all sure that all advertising or guarantee restrictions are
unacceptable to us.
Yes ;-)
It was a poor choice of words on my part. I had intended that to mean
any advertising or guarantee restrictions of the kind outlined in my
original email (viz. trademarks on the splash screen and
On 19/05/05, Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spanish law says (the ugly translation is mine): The following
un-disclaimable and inaliable rights belong to the author: [...] 6. Retiring
the work from the market, due to a change in their intellectual or moral
convictions, after a payment
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Point taken. However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in
section 6:
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
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder,
and didn't even have have license.
That doesn't seem very interesting.
You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather
than the reasoning that they contain.
Actually, I made the (perhaps false) assumption that you had
quoted the
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:11:56PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm not saying that Debian is Napster.
You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's *flagrant* facilitation of
copyright infringement.
I'm saying that we
On 5/18/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Logically, the process used here is more complex than that used by
gunzip, but effect is similar.
If nothing else, 17 USC 117 and dynamic linking absolutely protect you
from this
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the FSF FAQ.
For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false.
It is, in places, a bit
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather
than the reasoning that they contain.
Actually, I made
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the FSF FAQ.
For the record, I disagree that this
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's *flagrant* facilitation of
copyright infringement.
Yes. Note that there was a senator who thought that the laws which
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:29:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's *flagrant* facilitation of
copyright infringement.
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyways, I've never advocated relying on the circulars
in place of the copyright act. I was just thinking that
the circulars explained some reasoning about the copyright
act that you seemed to be having difficulty with. This is
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:29:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:54:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
You failed to quote the bit about how what Napster was doing wasn't
supposed to be illegal.
That bit would only be relevant if Debian was doing the things that got
Napster in trouble. We aren't.
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 09:48:25AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
it should be legal to name it driver for X.
Yes, and there should be no need
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:18:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That bit would only be relevant if Debian was doing the things that got
Napster in trouble. We aren't.
Or if we're doing similar things.
Such as: making available copyrighted
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This scope of license construction does not involve any fine
judgments about whether the licensee's return performance is up to
snuff.
If the GPL is an offer of contract, the only remedy explicitly included
in the agreement is
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At issue in a breach of contract claim. Not in a claim of copyright
infringement -- not unless and until it is proven that the contract
was justly terminated for material breach.
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 03:18:10PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Actually, some jurisdictions (such as the US) recognize theories of
vicarious and/or contributory infringement under which the scripter
can be held liable for inciting
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the
functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't
copyrightable in the first place.
Mise en scene, my friend, mise en scene.
We're not talking about
On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Thanks, Roberto. The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in
Michael K. Edwards said:
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about
the game engine.
We're talking about a theory of derivative work that doesn't require
literal copying. In the game context, that would be closer to mise
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:23:26PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I was only concerned about this part of your statement:
The rest of
us, as far as I can tell, think that giving a user a script that makes it
easier to compile a certain binary does not equate to distribution of the
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:23:26PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I was only concerned about this part of your statement:
The rest of
us, as far as I can tell, think that giving a user a script that makes it
easier to compile a
Nicholas Jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
I think it would be helpful if the driver was named after the
technology. If the bluetooth driver was named harold
On 5/19/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 09:48:25AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in
question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name
X,
it should be
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite literally: the court didn't address the scope of
license issue.
Bullshit. Decision at http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/050800ruling.html ,
which I already pointed out to you and
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're talking about something more like the Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.
v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. case.
So there are as wide a variety of games playable on the Transport
Tycoon Deluxe
Pharmacy - No prescription required
http://aryu.pma0bq7imh7fbq7.haetndhaet9.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The FAQ is not merely an interesting commentary -- it is the
published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
that he can have no reasonable basis under the law
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An action for copyright
infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you
have succeeded in
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the ambiguities have to be valid ambiguities.
That's where we seem to differ on this issue.
I think there is little question that the work based on the Program
definition + erroneous paraphrase in Section 0 is either: 1) a valid
ambiguity
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It probably would be a good idea for the openttd people to
make sure their engine can do other stuff -- maybe implement
a ship-based game, maybe a photo organizer, whatever...
That would certainly make their position stronger.
Not if it were an
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An action for copyright
infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
through the lens of
53 matches
Mail list logo
