On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:28:52 +, Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
And GPL also says, that the person who packages and then distributes
breaks the rules of GPL, it has no longer right to distribute nor use
the GPLed work.
It is impossible for the
[Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
contract, one is entitled to
and so on.
My apologies for digressing. In any case, judges are most often very
reasonable people, who more often than not understand that the law
should follow established practice and not the other way around.
Kind regards
Batist Paklons
This book gives a history of how software was granted copyright
protection gradually through case law in the US:
A. CLAPES, Softwars, London, Quorum Books, 1993, 325 p.
I found it both useful and agreeable, albeit slightly outdated being
more than ten years old.
Kind regards
Batist
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 Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:03:44 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me clarify. :-)
I have few complaints with the treatment of material for which the authors
*claim* copyright.
My complaint is about material distributed willy-nilly by its authors with
*no* copyright
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:55:25 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've cited cases about implied licenses under both the 1909 and 1976
Copyright Acts (in the US). As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license
under the GPL is
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:28:52 +, Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
And GPL also says, that the person who packages and then distributes
breaks the rules of GPL, it has no longer right to distribute nor use
the GPLed work.
It is impossible for the
On 13/03/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I should have said is the final authority on the meaning of a
license is the highest court in the jurisdiction in which you are being
sued over it. So, yes, for you the final authority is a Belgian court,
This file is in the public domain is sufficient in Belgian
legislation, and in any droit d'auteur legislation I know of.
sincerely, Batist
On 30/03/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Summary:
If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the
public domain,
11 matches
Mail list logo
