Am I correct in presuming that paragraph #2 makes this only eligible for
non-free? If not, what kind of license is this?
I think that you are correct.
--
MJR/slef
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
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 all need
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 could
transfer
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 transfer
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
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
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 copyright
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:04:11 +0800 Paul Wise wrote:
Thanks for the comments everyone. I'll get this sorted asap and send
an ITP in the next week or two.
Wonderful!
Congratulations for how you managed to persuade upstream to free his code! :)
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the
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 speaks about
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 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.
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 works the
12 matches
Mail list logo
