26-Nov-03 06:57 Henning Makholm wrote:
If you distribute whatever precise bits it was that the copyright
holder waved a copy of the GPL over, those bits must be assumed to be
the Program,
Right, GPL 0 is clear about it:
This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
19-Nov-03 13:25 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
Yes.
Sounds ridiculous. (Law is
On Nov 25, 2003, at 18:27, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Ok, your point seems valid here, especially in private business and in
isolated products (yet another text editor). But in this case, we are
talking about something I need to make the hardware run. And though I
didn't pay for the firmware, I
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it has nothing to do with whether a promise is kept, but it does
have something to do with if a legal promise ( = contract ) is made. A
contract (at least in many places) needs an offering (consideration)
from both sides;
That is true in
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
Section 2 of the GPL doesn't
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think Alexander's point may have merit. If you distribute whatever
precise bits it was that the copyright holder waved a copy of the GPL
over, those bits must be assumed to be the Program, and as such
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
#1 explicitly applies only to the Program's source code, but #2
speaks generally about the Program, source code or not.
Sure, but the only type of distribution allowed under #2 is
distribution under #1 (You may modify your copy or copies of the
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 00:27, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
(...)
But if I just hand you a floppy disk with two files on it, program.exe
and COPYING, and ask nothing in return, what contract could of been
formed?
Ok, your point seems valid here, especially in private business and in
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Now compare Atmel: They give me the binary with a note (called GPL),
that I can get the source code from then, the next 2 years at the
expense of the copying (or something like that). If they don't do that,
they are misleading the customer.
The GPL nowhere says that
Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now compare Atmel: They give me the binary with a note (called GPL),
that I can get the source code from then,
No, that's not what the note says. The note says that you can
distribute the binary to your neighbour if you also give your
neighbour the
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
#1 explicitly applies only to the Program's source code, but #2
speaks generally about the Program, source code or not.
Sure, but the only type of distribution allowed under #2 is
distribution under #1
Hi,
Am Do, den 27.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 09:55:
Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The GPL is all about what *you* have to do if *you* distribute. It
does not in any way enable you to demand things from *others* who
distribute, unless you happen to hold a copyright on the
Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But this new view leads me to other interesting effects: (assuming we
are talking about a close source driver, coming in binary form, but
under the GPL, distributed by the copyright holder)
* The driver is under the GPL, and since I want to use it
Hi,
Am So, den 23.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 04:44:
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:51, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Compare to this: You give a text to a newspaper with this licence:
* you may read it
* you may print it
Then there is no way I can stop them from printing, after we both
25-Nov-03 19:19 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00202.html
Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's clear that our basic disagreement is here. I see
Hi,
seems like we are getting closer here:
It is true, that the case I constructed has nothing to do with copyright
law. My bad.
You agree that if the GPL would part of some contract (in the wider
interpretation, e.g. when buying something) or came with something I
bought from them, it would be
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e.
why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL?
When binaries are not the prefered form for modification, as in the
case where there is still source code
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:51, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Compare to this: You give a text to a newspaper with this licence:
* you may read it
* you may print it
Then there is no way I can stop them from printing, after we both
accepted these conditions.
Sure, but if they gave you the license
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e.
why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL?
When binaries are not the prefered form for modification, as in the
case
On Nov 25, 2003, at 09:29, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Company B produces some kind of Sweets. Because the packaging is not
very large, they put a note on it for a descriptions of the
ingredients, mail us this way and we will send them to you. Then they
sell or give away (doesn't matter) some
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require to provide source. It doesn't
talk
19-Nov-03 13:25 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
Yes.
Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to
programming ;-) )
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:01:46PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:25:24PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
the fw is distributed on their
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:01:46PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
| On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:25:24PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
| The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
| But there are some devices
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 08:43:10AM +0100, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:42:25PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
Maybe there can be an exception because the code is not run on the host
but on the device?
Perhaps taking a look at the copyright of linuxtv-dvb might be
On Nov 19, Oliver Kurth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
the fw is distributed on their (windows) installation CDs.
Make an unofficial package which will contain just
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote:
=== /usr/share/doc/dvb-utils/copyright ===
NOTE about the included firmware dump:
The files Root and Dpram are distributed with the source package. Even if
they contain binary code, it cannot be executed as part of any other software
under
On Nov 19, 2003, at 16:58, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Ok, I guess people that are more into law will tell me that this does
not really work,
Copyright law gives rights to the copyright holder(s), their assignees,
etc., not the general public.
The only person who can sue for copyright
On Nov 20, 2003, at 12:17, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Or to put it another way, is free software license with redefined
terms
necessarily a free software license?
No. DFSG 2 says _very_ clearly that we require source code.
Hi,
Am Do, den 20.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 01:50:
Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, doesn't Atmel promise by distributing the .hex files under the GPL
to either Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code or Accompany it with a
Scripsit Joachim Breitner
You are talking about the usual case where the copyright owner
releases a work under the GPL but still has all rights to do with it
what it wants, like selling the binarys.
Yes. That is what happens here.
But when they give me the file, and telling me: here, this
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:00:48PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Oliver Kurth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But you do not seem to see my point: the human readable sources of the
firmware files are _not_ open. The hex files, ie. the compiled form,
in ACSII format they say _are_ GPL'ed
Scripsit Oliver Kurth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the hex files are GPLed, they are probably not distributable -- hex .c
files probably do not fall into the GPL's definition of source
code
Maybe there can be an exception because the code is not run on the host
but on the device?
Who do you
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:25:44PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Oliver Kurth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the hex files are GPLed, they are probably not distributable -- hex .c
files probably do not fall into the GPL's definition of source
code
Maybe there can be an exception
Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, doesn't Atmel promise by distributing the .hex files under the GPL
to either Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code or Accompany it with a written offer,
No. They are the copyright holder, so they can always
Scripsit Oliver Kurth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
the fw is distributed on their (windows) installation CDs.
Do these CDs accompany the hardware when bought? In that
36 matches
Mail list logo
