** Diego Biurrun ::
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:38:29AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:45:24PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:54:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > However, the reason Debian continues to include the mp3
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Sunday 10 July 2005 09:53 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 05:51:17PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Glenn, don't you think he's talking about technologically
> > > impractical. We all know how easy it is to circumvent click
> > > wrap licenses. But
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 09:16 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > Because it takes away the rights the GPL already gave to the
> > recipient: the right to use the software, without having to
> > agree to nothing at all.
>
> If you come upon th
** Michael K. Edwards ::
> On 7/14/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > But I'm not talking about USE, I'm talking about the
> > > possession of a copy of the code. You are not permitted to
> > > have a copy of the cod
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 11:56 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > He affirmed that one has to agree to the GPL to possess a copy
> > of a GPL'd program.
>
> WHAT?! No, never. Possession is not the issue, the issue is
> copying. And I am
> | 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or
> | publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using
> | proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under
> | conditions of this license;
>
> While this is probably DFSG-free, it can be very obnox
> Software patents are not legal in Europe. Period. The European
> patent convention from 1972 explicitly excludes software from
> patentability. Attempts to pass legislation that would have
> allowed software to become patentable have failed. The worst
> thing we could do now is give in to th
** Matthew Garrett ::
> If you define source as "the preferred form for modification",
> then
> http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86
> /drivers/nv/nv_hw.c?rev=1.7&view=markup is not source. I, on the
> other hand, believe that it is an acceptable (though borderline)
> fo
> Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by
> the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications
> thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification
> or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a
> work as a Derivative Work; this
> Agreed, and in the vast majority of the cases the translation is
> a creative work. A babelfish translation would be a literal
> translation.
an f2c translation is a literal (automatic) translation, so it's not a creative
work. The copyrights of the original work apply to the translated work IM
** Loïc Minier ::
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > >From the GPL: Activities other than copying, distribution and
> modification are not
> > > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
> > > of running the Program is not restricted...
> > So the
** Jeff Licquia ::
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
> > distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a
> > work that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact th
** Jeff Licquia ::
> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
> > OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work
> > has a definition in the statute (in the US case,
** Raul Miller ::
> On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
> > automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
> >
> > #include
** Michael Poole ::
> Potential penalties are irrelevant to my question. You assume a
> priori that such linking is a violation of the GPL. My question was
> why that assumption is valid. As I explained above, his citation of
> case law does not fit the facts.
The only good answer people in d-
** Raul ::
> On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
> > got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
> > is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
> > cash
> IANAL & AFAIK there are about five versions of the Creative
> Commons License.
He was talking about the "attribution" license...
> Some of them are very restricting. e.g. "don't modify my beautiful
> painting". But a wiki is about allow others to modify ( improve it )
>
>
> Question to [EMAI
** MJ Ray ::
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 18 Aug 2005 17:37:05 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> > > As such, the permission granted to copy it and use any part with
> > > attribution is needed and might be sufficient
> > With no permission to modify?
>
> It's a hack, but you can use the
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Friday 19 August 2005 06:47 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > Nope. There are other kinds of transformation that configure
> > derivative works: translation to other languages is one of them,
> > and it does not involve copying parts at all
** Sean Kellog ::
> On Saturday 27 August 2005 09:08 am, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > That said, it looks to me like this license grants you the
> > > right to use those game mechanics, including making and
> > > distributiong modified versions of them. If
** Mark Rafn ::
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
>
> > It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
> > actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact
> > that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program
> > is equivelent to linking the library w
** Andrew Suffield ::
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es
> wrote:
> > 3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance,
> > that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL.
> > Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library
** Andrew Suffield ::
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> > While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they
> > were doing, I am not certain.
> >
> > It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
> > actually be upheld in the case of stat
> Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere
> linking against a
> dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work.
s/copyrighted/derivative/ ??
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Here is the US definition of a derivative:
>
> -
> A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
> preexisting works, such
> as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization,
> motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction,
> abridgment,
>
> > Remember: DERIVATIVE <==> TRANSFORMATION.
>
> Word games, no change in meaning. You're saying that "Only the
> verbatim copying of a copyrighted text, possibly with modifications,
> can constitute copyright infringement; all other actions are legal".
>
> The rest of your mail just ranted the
> If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
> understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with
> more than that.
>
> There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
> GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
I can't argue with someone
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think
> > that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
>
> Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal
> arguments surrounding t
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
> Guimar?es wrote:
> > > If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
> > > understanding and industry practice then you'll have to
> come up with
> > > more than that.
> > >
> > > There's an awful lot of lawyers and law
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
> meaningfull to dis
** Matthew Garrett ::
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses
> >> that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
> >
> > The majority (all!) of license we ship
> The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
> discrimination against licensors without money?
DFSG #5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."
This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not
Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric. Assume every work
eligible for copyright protection, for the sake of the argument, and
for $DEITY's sake. AND we're talking ONLY about dynamic linking.
AND, to boot, that those bits that end up in a compiled work by way
of being in a .h file (for in
> FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
> right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > FRCP 8(a) requires any such claim to explain why the court has
> > jurisdiction over the question and the defendant. How would your
> > pleading address this?
>
> Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
Whose US citizenship?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
> > > Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
> >
> > Whose US citizenship?
>
> The plaintiff.
No.
Because the Court has no bearing on what would a non-US-citizen
nor-US-resident (the defendant) will do. If the Court orders you (*)
to stop distributing some software and you don't, the Polic
> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
> them?
YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee;
the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate agains
** Raul Miller ::
> On 9/9/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric.
>
> Given the context, I haven't a clue what that means. This could
> be anywhere from begging the question to a desire to
** David Nusinow ::
> If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it.
> If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to
> travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say
> that choice of venue clauses aren't Free, then the person bringing
> the suit w
> I'm guessing 'By electing to download the material from this web site
> the user agrees: ... 2. to use a credit line in connection
> with images.'
> is a restriction on modification (DFSG #3).
I don't think a credit line is enough to trigger DFSG#3, because
it would fall under "proper attribu
> The difference is that when you talk about dynamic linking, the
> 'replacement' means fiddling with linker options or package
> dependencies. It is indeed nonsense to conclude that doing these
> things would change the copyright status of the program using the
> libraries.
in the case of dynamic
> You stole somebody else's work when you wrote programX. Piracy is
> wrong. You are destroying the hopes and dreams of an entire
> industry. [0]
>
> [0] This appears to be the way it is explained to four-year-olds
You apparently do not have kids. Especially four-year-olds. Mine is
already 6 and
> > Now seriously, can you please explain to me:
> >
> > 1. do you think programX is a derivative work of libopenssl?
> > 2. why?
> > 3. do you think programX is a derivative work of libnovossl?
> > 4. why?
> >
> > I keep making questions, and you keep giving me non-sequiturs.
>
> You keep askin
** Raul Miller ::
> On 9/12/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > Assume every work eligible for copyright protection, for the
> > > > sake of the argument, and for $DEITY's sake. AND we're
> > > > ta
** Raul Miller ::
> On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
> > > would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
> > > question). But it does elimina
> We SHOULD be taking an individual work and analyzing it
> for creative content. Not cooking up arbitrary hypotheses
> and pretending they mean something
I am going to try taking some hours this weekend and verify one
of the programs + libcurl + openssl cases. I'll get back to you
next week.
>
> I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
> section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCR
> On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
> > > section 3 of the LGPL.
> >
> > Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
>
> Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're
> right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms
> for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for
> example, which even Microsoft uses and likes (in spite of
> contractual obligation to provide access t
"This might be relevant if we planned on distributing only non-working copies
of Quagga."
The copies of Quagga that Debian distributes are non-working; try to execute a
Debian package...
"Anyways, I'll repeat my earlier assertion: if working copies of Quagga do not
use functionality specific
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd
> infringes the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction
> that recognizes the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty
> much any jurisdiction that has a copyright law. See Mi
De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The issue isn't functional cloning. It's the fact that a video
> game is a "literary work" in the sense of having characters,
> settings, plot lines, etc., and therefore can be infringed in the
> non-literal sense of Micro Star v. FormGen -- ev
>
> See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
> Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
> it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable
> expression from Transport Tycoon.
Ok. I'm conviced you're probably right.
--
Cheers,
M
De: MJ Ray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of
> > snippets from the "About" page:
> >
> > An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport
> > Tycoon Deluxe".
> >
> > OpenTTD is m
De: Steve Langasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The phrase "For an executable work, complete source code means all
> the source code for all modules it contains" appears in the text
> of GPL section *3*, which is not specific to "works based on the
> Program." Such lack of attention to license deta
* M.K.Edwards ::
> So I think it turns out I was right in the first place: continued
> verbatim copying and distribution counts as "utilization", and the
> only scope for argument is about how much bug-fixing you can do
> after termination without being sued for "preparing" a new
> derivative work.
* Andrew Suffield ::
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:17:42PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 10:06:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:20:05PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > > You've got a problem with this one, because licenses can be
> > > combine
* Sean Kellogg ::
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:51 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
> > >flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that
> > >you feel hints at this sort of a requirement/prohibition?
> >
> > Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the
> > tests are commonly used.
* Sean Kellogg ::
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 03:21 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political
> > > science perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a
> > > self-appointed group of various legal, political, an
>
* Marco ::
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >It blatently fails DFSG 5, because the person modifying the
> >software may not have internet access for emailing the changes.
> >(Think perhaps a developing nation.)
> I still do not believe that this is "discrimination against
> persons or groups". This
* Bernhard ::
> * Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050611 20:05]:
> > The FSF is not in the business of giving truthful advice about
> > the law.
>
> Sorry to ask the following, but I am getting really curious and
> hope you do not feel insulted. But I really have to ask:
>
> Are you sponso
* Marco ::
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> I still do not believe that this is "discrimination against
> >> persons or groups". This is an unreasonable interpretation of
> >> the original meaning of DFSG.5.
> >I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable
> >interpretation of DFSG 5. Why
--
[]s,
Massa
//
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then the
How can a text get lost? Hmpf.
* Michael ::
> On 6/14/05, Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050613 21:21]:
> > > C'mon, Raul. The "crack-smoking GPL" refers to an
> > > interpretation ("non-contract license", "functional use
> > > results i
(Puzzled) Who's who in your analogy?
> Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he
> shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly
> stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when
> he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be
Hi Gregor. Let's see if I can understand your motivations, and help
you.
** Gregor Richards ::
> > In response to "An interface to the program, not the program
> > itself" Am I the only person who fails to see this as a
> > significant difference? I don't think the freedoms of Free
> > Software
** Mark Rafn ::
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Gregor Richards wrote:
>
> > The term "Free Software" is open to interpretation, the DFSG is
> > not the be-all-end-all of what is and isn't "Free".
>
> True. This is why I use and support Debian - it's the closest
> thing I can find to my personal definit
68 matches
Mail list logo
