Re: TrueCrypt License 2.3
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le mercredi 16 janvier 2008 =C3=A0 14:55 +, MJ Ray a =C3=A9crit : > > Where? The naming rights asserted above seem much broader than what a > > trademark allows. Trademarks have many limitations. > > If we have named Firefux the modified version of Firefox, I doubt the > Mozilla foundation would have let that pass. There's various other reasons for that and it wouldn't have been covered by a prohibition on calling it Firefox or something easily confused with Firefox. (How often do people use the other f-word to mean a fox?) [...] > > Does it matter whether it is non-free only for France or only for the > > US? Doesn't that mere difference make it fail DFSG 5? > > I don=E2=80=99t think so. The fact that it doesn=E2=80=99t grant some of th= > e rights that > are usually applicable in the US but not somewhere else doesn=E2=80=99t mak= > e the > license in itself non-free. [...] The licence isn't just not granting rights - it's requiring users to abandon some rights they hold. Seems like a cost to me. > > [...] They're also unnecessarily you-you-you. Did Francesco > > Poli run over Josselin Mouette's cat? > > Huh? Who=E2=80=99s trying to make things personal? Josselin Mouette, it seemed. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On torsdagen den 24 januari 2008, Ben Finney wrote: > John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative > > > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by > > > > > a third party." I think this could threat this software > > > > > freedom. > > > > On further reflection, I'm inclined to agree. The fact that it says > > "OpenVision *retains* copyright" strongly implies that it is simply > > talking about maintaining the status quo, not about changing any > > copyright ownership. If the intention was for copyright to be > > assigned to OpenVision then clearer wording to this effect would be > > needed. > > It's the "derivative works [...] whether created by OpenVision or by a > third party" that muddies the water. This could be rationally > interpreted as a claim to "retain" copyright in *all* derived works of > the original, including all derivatives, even those parts created "by > a third party". If I'm not entirely mistaken, a "work" is a unit, to which one or more persons may have copyright as a whole. There really is no such thing as copyright to a part of a work. However, if a portion of a work can be broken out as a new work on its own, it is possible that only those authors who had part in creating that portion can claim copyright to it. -- Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks) "Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
