Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The FAQ is not merely an interesting commentary -- it is the
published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
that he can have no reasonable basis under the law
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An action for copyright
infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you
have succeeded in
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
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
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
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm told that under American law, a promise that is made without
getting something tangible (a consideration) in return cannot be
legally binding. That would seem to allow any free software license
to be revoked as soon as the author wants to.
William T Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a very interesting thought. What if you reverse it? The *author*
of the software receives no consideration from the person the software is
distributed to. I am suddenly very afraid of this.
Yes, and that means that the copier cannot sue
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, but I was thinking the other way around: the author of the
program does not necessarily get any consideration out of putting
his program under the GPL (which ought to count as a promise to
enter the described contract with anyone who accepts the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, what -- specifically -- is the distinction?
A contract is where I promise to do X and you promise to do Y. The
basic rule is that we must simultaneously agree to the terms of the
contract, which must involve each of us getting something. If one
party
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We have an owner who authored the software and holds the copypright
for something distributed under GPL, and a copier who has made a
copy of it.
Usually, what you're calling
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The owner hasn't gotten any consideration, and therefore he hasn't
bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
what?
Can't the owner, since he hasn't bound himself
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his
mind, we lose the right to make and distribute new modifications:
I might still have the right to make one modified copy of the work,
but I don't have any right to copy that one
Marketa Ceplova [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
This still seems to imply that free software is not possible under
U.S. law...
I did not say these words, and the conclusion it represents is
entirely opposite to my true opinions.
Please be more
David Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In these cases where there are grey areas, I wouldn't really trust our
opinions to be all that valid. Just as we might not trust a lawyer's
advice on how to implement a technical issue, maybe we should consider
having a lawyer looking at something that
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
In these cases where there are grey areas, I wouldn't really trust our
opinions to be all that valid. Just as we might not trust a lawyer's
advice on how to implement
Marc van Leeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, I assume that Microsoft does not forbid distribution of binaries
for programs that run under MS Windows (that would certainly decrease the
popularity of their platform). Is this because they explicitly gave
permission, or simply because
Adi Stav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My bad. I meant approved the QPL as a Free license, which they have.
Yes, but that's a question of fact, not of whether the FSF like it.
It *is* a free software license. It has problems, but that's not the
point.
Brian Kimball [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(GPL, section 2):
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to
those sections when you
Stephen C. North [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) The clause about feeding patches back to ATT is interesting. Why does
it
conflict with this statement in the Debian social contract:
We will feed back bug-fixes, improvements, user requests, etc. to the
upstream
authors of software
Stephen C. North [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, if delivering custom-modified software includes sharing
source code with customers, the ATT Source Code Agreement further
requires sharing the patches with ATT. If you keep the patches
private my reading of the ATT license is that you can still
Brian Kimball [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where did you get entire program? That's not in the GPL. Isn't the
question to be asked is it a derivative work of a GPLed work? Maybe
I'm too focused on the phrase derivative work; are there cases where
the GPL can require that the source code for
Brian Kimball [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oops, I only thought of this after reading SScott's mail. Even if I'm
incorrect regarding the meaning of modified work as a whole, how could
one possibly violate the GPL if, as above, the GPLed work is not
distributed. After all, the GPL purports to
SSchott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3) If you attempt to defeat (2) by distributing the two functions
separately, or distributing only locate_inner_otter, and telling
users how to combine them to produce frob-otters, and there is no
way to make locate_inner_otter useful
Brian Kimball [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) If locate_inner_otter is not derived from find_outer_otter, but
you distribute binaries for frob-otters, then you must still give
the complete source code for both locate_inner_otter and
find_outer_otter. The reason is that the
The point being that if locate_outer is an original piece of work, it can be
distributed on any terms.
The problem here is that the doctrine of contributory infringement in
cases like this has already (I'm told) been settled by the courts, in
favor of the copyright interests.
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sorry if it's a FAQ, but I didn't find a place where it stands
explicitely: Is the old BSD licence (with the advertising clause) DFSG
compliant? I did read the Debian Social Contract and the DFSG and I
didn't find any reason why it shouldn't, or did I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miguel Wooding SF Ten.Union) writes:
Didn't I see a message in this list (perhaps from Joseph Carter or
Adrian Bunk) saying that UCB had revoked this clause? If so,
shouldn't our copyright notice reflect that? Is this, then, a bug in
potato's postgresql package? And how
Pedro Guerreiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A while ago I posted a ITP for GnomeRAR, a really nice utility, in the way
of Winzip in the Window$ world. But the upstream author has plans to use the
unrar-module, with his software, and this might have soma problems. Attached
are the license for
Brian Kimball [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL already tells you. It's appealing to the reasonable man
test.
So even if a work distributed with the modified Program is not a
derivative work of the Program, it must be GPLed if the work DEPENDs
Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's unfortunate when a law gets written into a software license or even
incorporated by reference because (among other reasons) laws are usually
limited in geopolitical scope and often modified or repealed. In this case,
if The Export Administration
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
o No fees or compensation are charged for use, copies, or
access to this software. You may charge a nominal
distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a
copy, but you may not charge for the program itself.
Justin Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They need to add a definition of operating system so that we can tell
how much of a system needs to be covered by an open source license before
they will allow us to use their software with it.
Their FAQ says that the kernel is what the mean, and that
Martin Konold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
except itself dual licensing with GPL leads unfortunately to the
fragmentation of development.
That's not true; the GPL is compatible with many other licenses.
Paul Serice [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I guess it's a couple of things. First I feel betrayed. Given
all the comments I've received about Stallman's reasonably
well-publicized philosophy I suppose I have no one to blame but myself.
Nobody thinks (but you) that the GPL grants to people
Paul Serice [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But this is not what GPL is about . . . apparently. Apparently, even if
the original author wants his or her work used in a certain non-GPL-ed
way, it doesn't matter. The moral thing to do is to disregard the
wishes of the author and to copy it anyway
Paul Serice [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there jurisprudence on the specific topic of how the fair use
exception relates to making personal copies?
One interesting precedent I know of. First, there is precedent that
you may make a tape recording of a musical album you own, for personal
Lindsay Haisley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thus spake Thomas Bushnell, BSG on Sun, May 21, 2000 at 11:24:13PM CDT
One interesting precedent I know of. First, there is precedent that
you may make a tape recording of a musical album you own, for personal
purposes including reducing wear
Alan W. Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every other distribution has concluded that they can.
I'm not sure. I think they've decided they are unlikely to get sued,
which is not at all the same thing. Similarly, MIT's Athena has
decided to explore using Gnome for its Athena desktop, but not
Chloe Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All rights reserved is not necessary. This is just a legacy from the past
which I believe is no longer required - you had to use that language in
order to get certain protections in some Latin America countries but no
longer. All rights are reserved
giulio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since my works could go every where in the world, in any country
speaking any language, is the English GPL text of any validity outside
non English speaking countries?
I believe the answer is yes.
You should not translate the GPL except in close cooperating
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's my understanding that hurd for example doesn't have this kind of
exception (and I suspect never will, given the project's foundation), so
we'll never even see apache for it (the damned BSDish advertising clause
strikes again!)
There's no need to
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Please Cc: me, I'm not subscribed to this list.]
Can somebody confirm that clause 5 is allowed by of DFSG and OSD (on
the web site the authors states this is open source software)?
It seems pretty clear to me that it is not DFSG-free. A DFSG program
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
This license is, in my opinion, not DFSG-free, nor could code written
under it be combined with GPL'd code.
I have also asked rms for his comment; I'll report back what he says.
Thomas
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mar 29, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems pretty clear to me that it is not DFSG-free. A DFSG program
needs to be usable on any operating system without discrimination, and
this license says you can use it on Linux without
Jörgen Hägg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Going thru the files I found more copyright notices, the files have different
copyrights (sorry for the wasted bandwith).
It seems as if the code has been modified/written both at Purdue and Ohio
State.
Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)?
This
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
... and to alter it and distribute it freely?
While all logic and reason might say that is good enough, it at least
one notable
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still smarting from the University of Washington, eh? :-(
You betcha.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Jörgen Hägg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)?
Yes, it's basically a BSD licence. We usually tacitly ignore
the advertising clauses...
The advertising clause is usually thought not to be enforceable in the
Joergen Haegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I assume if these copyrights appear in the same source file, then
they must all be followed?
Haven't quite understod the importance of the date. These
copyrights (and there are actually a few more without explicit
copyright which I'm trying to
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
The advertising clause is usually thought not to be enforceable in the
United States, but it definitely is in the UK.
Well, didn't ATT believe it was enforceable in US back with Net/2 (I
believe
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies
... and to alter
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I missed the with or without modification in the header, so thought this
clause was the only thing granting permission for derived works. Had that
been the case, DFSG 3 would be the controlling consideration and fail.
But the permission for derivate works
Juliusz Chroboczek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I share your hope, but I cannot help noticing that the number of
available scalable fonts is currently the greatest weakness of the
Free Software and Open Source community (communities?).
However, adding these fonts did nothing to help the problem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOKUBI Takatsugu) writes:
Each User may also freely distribute the Program, whether in its
original form or modified, to any third party or parties, PROVIDED
that the provisions of Section 3 (NO WARRANTY) will ALWAYS appear
on, or be attached to, the Program, which is
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks like a form of the law requirement Debian's been unhappy about
before. I hate to say it's non-free on such an innocuous clause,
but such is how it goes.
It's not innocuous in the world we live in. There are countries which
do all kinds of horrid
Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know for books, the copyright on the collection as a whole (including
cover art, etc) is separate from the copyright on the individual stories.
I assume this is similar.
This is true, and related to the case. But the copyright on the whole
must
LinuxLand / Hans-Jörg Ehren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately publishers has to copyright their products for
protection against misuse. German copyright enables us to do so,
whatever the content is or comes from.
This is the very assumption which Free Software exists to contradict
and
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Clause 3 and 4 imposes restrictions on the software not found in the
GPL, which makes GPL incompatible with this license. BSD licenses has
no such problems.
I'm almost sure you are incorrect here. The requirement is of the
sort that the new BSD and the
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Since this Keyspan license seems to be objectionable, what kind of
license can/should a company put on its binary firmware image that
has to be included in the Linux kernel. They can't/will not put GPL
on the binary image, as we/Linus has
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have to agree with you and disagree with Thomas. If the code is
simply bits that will be spewed out to some device, that seems much
more like a combination than linking.
I'm sorry; I think I insufficiently understood the case, but now I've
got it
Hugh Blemings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm a bit concerned that Keyspan are being painted as the bad guys here -
for better or worse (seemingly the latter :) they were relying on me for
guidance as to how best to walk the line between helping out and protecting
their interests.
Well, as
Sam Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
certainly... host adapters, hard drives, motherboards, video cards, storage
devices, digital cameras, etc. all have firmware that most likely contains a
lot of juicy information about the hardware that vendors may want to keep
secret. and we should
Sam Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rather than whinge about the licenses and turn away vendors who are trying
to be useful, why not solve the problem? and no, forcing hardware vendors to
provide open source code is not the answer - most will probably just
withdraw support, saving it for
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also don't see a (legal) problem with GPL programs that just move
unfree data around. Otherwise cp would have serious use restrictions.
However, cp doesn't contain within itself the unfree data. The
keyspan drivers do. If Adam's patch is applied,
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems like you're interpreting the weasel words to make the whole
clause have no practical effect. I don't think that we can really do
that. You're saying that if my boss tells me not to contribute back
changes, that is enough to foil best effort.
Giacomo Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Do this license allow us and the mirrors to distribute the
microcode?
I don't believe so.
3) Intel calls microcode data file (see the email from
Intel).
Thus no software, no restriction in GPL and DFSG (like
strictly copyright
for
Giacomo Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) It is difficult to say that microcode is a program:
there are surelly many entry points (one per instruction),
many exit point. Instruction are executed partly in parallel,...
It is too hardware dependent. You can see it also as a immage
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Adding something like: ``In addition, you may freely distribute copies of
this microcode'' would be fine. Adding something like ``Special permission
is given for this microcode to be distributed by the Debian project.''
would probably also be fine.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It's not able to be modified, it's not going to be a part of Debian
anyway. What's your point?
Ok, perhaps I misunderstood. Please forgive me...I was assuming that
it was being discussed here precisely because it might be part of
Debian. What
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe, but there would be very little practical benefit from having
DFSG-free microcode. Most of the arguments for free software don't
really apply to microcode. I work for a company that designs
microprocessors, so I might be interested in
Mark Wielaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It not only has the obnoxious advertising clauses, but it also has the
Apache style trademark clauses (Products derived from this software may
not be called [some words]).
Trademark clauses are a pain in the butt, but remember that they don't
impede the
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not sure why the BSD advertising clause is unenforceable in the U.S. To
me it is a contract clause in the BSD like all other clauses
therein.
It's obviously not a contract, for the usual reasons. It's a public
license, not a contract.
If the BSD license
Chloe Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By this distinction are you suggesting that all clauses that cause the
licensee to forego rights are unenforceable e.g. limitation of
liability? I would not think too many open source developers would be
happy with that scenario. Aren't they all relying
Puybr Ubsszna [EMAIL PROTECTED] jevgrf:
Va Unecre Ebj, Choyvfuref, Vap. i. Angvba Ragrecevfrf,91 gur Fhcerzr
Pbheg znqr pyrne gung pbclevtug ynj vf fhofgnagviryl pbafgvghgvbany:
gur Svefg Nzraqzrag qbrf abg fuvryq fcrrpu gung vasevatrf nabgure'f
pbclevtug.92 Pbclevtug, gur Pbheg fnvq, vf
Chloe Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An additional basis for the clause is to turn a default rule into a
breach of contract/license issue, which can have different thresholds
of proof, elements of breach, etc. than relying on copyright
infringement.
Though it's a public license, so
Chloe Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see how contract issues are entirely moot. Certainly at
least the terms of the license must be interpreted to determine if
they are complied with. AFAIK copyright law does not deal with such
issues. Rather contract law has a long established
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
and go from there.
Where to? What exactly is served by the whole discussion?
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not sure I understand the significance of the difference here and what
issue I am confusing - perhaps you can enlighten me on your position.
Copyright infringement may occur whether you fail to comply with a license
or whether you breach a contract. Last I
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Lbh'er zhqqyvat nccyrf naq benatrf. Urer gur pbheg vf gnyxvat nobhg
gur serr fcrrpu orvat vgfrys n pbclevtug npg bs fcrrpu.
Could somebody please explain the joke? Why is this rot13'd?
No joke
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This causes no problem, because the QPL is not incompatible with the LGPL,
but it is with the GPL. So there is no possibility to link it with
libreadline, isn't it ?
You are correct: such a combination is not allowed if the licenses are
incompatible.
As
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
and go from there.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:20:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Where to? What exactly is served by the whole
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whether or not the GNU foundation needs to mention the Apache project is
irrelevant: what matters is whether Debian needs to, and a good portion of
Debian systems DO run Apache code. Isn't it only fair that Debian shares
the credit for the systems with the
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
then what is it?
It's the name of the operating system.
The operating system is named GNU.
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I don't think this is very relevant to the point I was
making.
Compiling and linking might or might not constitute copyright
violation, depending on the total context and the intentions of the
parties. Without knowing the total context
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One might, and one might be right. Remember, the US legal system is
based in the Social Contract theory, where the Government is given powers
by the people, not vice-versa. This means that if there isn't a law
specifically granting the Government power,
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you really wish to reopen this? The thread was ended.
Ssh. This isn't your project, remember? If you want to join, join.
If you want to snipe from sidelines, go somewhere else.
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Linking is not necessarily copyright violation, but if combined with
certain other acts, the whole thing, including all its parts, are an
instance of illegal copying. The total combination would
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[The usual inane drivel]
John, go away.
This mailing list exists for the Debian project to discuss our own
legal issues, not for other people to try to work out ways to subvert
the GPL, or otherwise cheat us.
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So now this is a RICO case?! Complex acts usually involve Enterprise
corruption, which again has a different standard of proof. Unless you can
prove bad acts by all in the chain, forget a civil action on this one...
I didn't say anything about enterprise
Several topics come up here with some regularity, but which don't
belong here IMO. The name of the mailing list causes that confusion
understandably, but I think the situation would be improved by some
awareness and appropriate action.
The sorts of topics that are really not appropriate are
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, but you used language that only occurs in such cases (actually no, it
also occurs in most conspiracy theories, but the GPL is used IN quite a
few conspiracy theories) ((note: it's a plausible parallel: for what is
enterprise corruption but a conspiracy
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Program
The proper interpretation of this area of the GPL is not on topic for
this mailing list.
Please take the discussion to somewhere where it belongs.
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just to clear up a possible misconception. The U.S. Copyright Act provides
that copying and creating derivative works are the exclusive rights of the
author. The most significant exceptions to those doctrines are fair use
and specific exemptions provided by the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Uh, you just posted half a dozen messages on roughly this topic to this
list, why is it suddenly off-topic when someone else does?
I should not have entered the discussion; it was always off topic. My
posts were too.
Did you read my longer post,
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I note you CC'd -legal about this even so Nice to see that you've
taken _Animal Farm_ to heart so... BTW, neither was your Murder allegory
on topic, yet it exists. Hypocrite.
As I said in a longer post, my own posts were also off topic, and I
should
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have trouble seeing how the separate distribution of A and B and then the
end-user combining them is infringement by either the distributor or the
end-user. Assuming that neither A nor B includes code from each other, then
A is not a derivative work of B nor
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where does title 17 mention property rights? In fact, this is a very good
example of why property rights trump copyrights.
This is not on topic for debian-legal. Please take it elsewhere.
none [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you will, my query/analysis has important implications to Debian and to
any other packagers. I am simply raising the issue that distributing A and B
separately (whether that be a GPL or a non-GPL library or any other code),
and not as a derived work, does not
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
BTW, just killfile Galt, you don't miss anything worthwhile and you do
miss a whole bunch of mindless nonsense. Even better, if he ever gets
the sense to start using a real name, he won't stay killfiled. It's win,
win, win, I say.
Yes, good
1 - 100 of 963 matches
Mail list logo
