On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:13:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
No argument from me... but it is the system we've got here in the States and
FOSS developers should plan accordingly, just as is expected of anyone else
who enters into the world of copyrights.
But that's just the problem--as far
On 6/7/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not so much projects that are actually around for 35 years. Rather,
if you maintain a project for, say, three or four years, I reuse large
chunks of it in my own project, and my project outlives yours. Decades
later, you (or your heirs)
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:52:38PM -0700, Raul Miller wrote:
You seem to be trying to talk about this in an impartial manner,
but as long as you talk in terms of minimizing all obstacles
you're not doing so.
The GPL deliberately places obstacles to code reuse: it disallows reuse by
projects
To be precise, here is the relevant text from 17 USC 203:
(a) Conditions for Termination. In the case of any work other than a
work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer
or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by
the author on or after
On 6/7/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL deliberately places obstacles to code reuse: it disallows reuse by
projects that don't release every bit of linked code (more or less) under
a GPL-compatible license, in the hope of increasing code reuse in the long
term. I believe
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:09:28AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/7/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not so much projects that are actually around for 35 years. Rather,
if you maintain a project for, say, three or four years, I reuse large
chunks of it in my own
On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I integrate your MP3 decoding library into my media playing software. The
author of the MP3 decoding source code is very clear: you. I can only reuse
that library due to the license granted to it. That license is revoked. I
can no longer
On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if your claims are true, it would still require going to court to prove,
and until somebody successfully does that, very few people are going to go
against the FSF's claims. So, as a matter of actual practice, my statement
stands.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:02:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I integrate your MP3 decoding library into my media playing software. The
author of the MP3 decoding source code is very clear: you. I can only reuse
that library due to
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 05:57 am, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Published interface? Again, integrate into my software, not link
against a published interface. Copy code directly into my program, and
allow the works to merge and integrate.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 02:13:31AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Alban Browaeys wrote:
Is there a consensus about what make it non free
Yes. They don't give you permission to make a new document, derived from an
RFC but renamed and describing a different standard. (Unless you submit it
On 6/8/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 05:57 am, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
If you truly wish to do so, you may strip your heirs, in your last
will and testament, of statutory termination rights, by the simple
expedient of ratifying an existing assignment
On 6/8/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This section is not referring to transferring termination rights by will, it
is referring to copyright assignment by will.
So, if I assign you my copyright in FOO via a will, then the assignment is not
subject to termination. However, it
13 matches
Mail list logo
