Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Um, it is true that the rules for interpreting the meaning of licenses
are more or less the same as the rules for interpreting contracts. It
does not follow that licenses are therefore contracts.
The words license and contract are indeed not
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At this point, there seem to be quite a
few people who agree that the FSF's stance (copyright-based license)
and the far-from-novel one that you advance (unilateral license /
donee beneficiaries) are untenable in the jurisdictions with whose
law
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:39:21PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip arguments that might have been worthy of rebuttal on
debian-legal five months ago]
I'm not trying to be snotty about this, but if you want to engage in
the
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At this point, there seem to be quite a
few people who agree that the FSF's stance (copyright-based license)
and the far-from-novel one that you advance (unilateral license /
donee
I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
already orphaned. In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
licenses (as I understand it):
* libc6 (LGPL)
* libgcc1 (GPL w/ exception)
* libqt3c102-mt (QPL/GPL)
*
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry about that; I skipped a step or two. Your unilateral grant of
permission is not in fact a recognized mechanism under law for the
conveyance of a non-exclusive copyright license.
I'm sorry, can you point me to the statute here? The US
* Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050519 19:52]:
Moral rights only allow you to act against mutilation of
the work and lack of proper attribution. And you have the right
to decide on _first_ publication. But once you publish, the
work is on the market and your rights are exhausted. I
OS-Adobe-Macromedia etc All under $15-$99 CDS
http://phnmp.elithdwpb6w3bxw.quotajquot9.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/20/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry about that; I skipped a step or two. Your unilateral grant of
permission is not in fact a recognized mechanism under law for the
conveyance of a non-exclusive copyright license.
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[a lot of repetition that pretty much ignores what I said, and
especially where I said:]
So this is a tempest in a silly teapot. I'm happy to leave the thread
here, since the upshot is a no-relevance-to-important-issues.
So, since you ignored that
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:38:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Which can occur if anyone redistributes any of the I_WANT_OPENSSL
debian packages.
According to you. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that such
binaries are
Raul Miller wrote:
But we're doing more than distributing the tarball. The tarballs we're
distributing have been modified so that the user need only type a
couple commands, and (using software we've provided) the
binaries are reconstituted on their machine.
So what? First off, the GPL gives us
On 5/20/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/20/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Raul Miller wrote:
Which can occur if anyone redistributes any of the I_WANT_OPENSSL
debian packages.
No, most likely even that would be fine. Since Debian packages are
intended to be used with Debian, and Debian ships OpenSSL, third parties
get to use the GPL's exception for things distributed
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
But note that in principle the
creation of derivative works can be infringement even if they are not
distributed, and I haven't dug through case law to see exactly how far
17 USC 117 can be stretched from run-time use to local builds.
Thankfully, you need not do so; GPL
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are choosing to post on three different forums. Having made
that choice, it is your obligation to make your comments relevant
to them all; you cannot post on debian-devel, and then
Raul Miller wrote:
That works only if they don't distribute libssl with it.
Sure. Same as for Debian. If you distributing software, open source or
not, you need to read and follow the license.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On 5/20/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL 1, 2, and 3 apply to distributions in object or executable form.
GPL 1 and 2 apply to distributions in source code form. The GPL has
*clearly* and *intentionally* placed additional restrictions (given in
section 3) on binary
On 5/20/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stipulate, for the moment, that either the Program or any derivative
work under copyright law (candidate E) and a work containing the
Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications
and/or translated into another
Now, it's finally possible for you to enlarge your penis
http://www.legahe.com/ss/
Wanna be more man? Check this dude
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/20/05, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are choosing to post on three different forums. Having made
that choice, it is your obligation to make your comments relevant
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 5/20/05, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we please try to hold most of these discussions primarily in
-legal?
I agree entirely. Please review the thread's history
The thread's history just shows where the mistakes were
Another long one, because I'm trying to get to the bottom of this
scope of license business.
On 5/20/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip agreement, about which I am very happy]
I think it's important to note that narrower bounds on the license are
not necessarily less favorable to
(Note, I might come back to some of this later -- I need to
think about whether I want to bother raising some issues, among
other things --, but a few of these I have immediate questions or
comments about.)
On 5/20/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is some question about
On 5/20/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a paraphrase of candidate E, it's erroneous. The grammar, as I
read it, doesn't allow it to be anything else. But a licensee is
certainly welcome to argue for the presence of an ambiguity there if
they have some reason to prefer
25 matches
Mail list logo
