On Wednesday 13 July 2005 10:32 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The
question is whether its okay to mandate acceptance of the GPL at
download. I am suggesting that you
On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:10 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
Given that Debian is a global distribution, perhaps your question
should reference something other than local law?
I checked '106(1) rights' on Google, and it appears to be a US legal
On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that first-sale and digital goods maps very well... I'm really
uncertain as to how the courts have fallen on the issue. I don't see how
first sale authorizes me to download (and hence make a copy) of source code
to which I don't
On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am so confused. #1 allows a licensor to impose all manner of terms without
giving actual notice to the licensee, whereas #2 at least gives the licensee
a chance. The warranty provisions are a great example. The GPL rejects all
implied
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 you
HAVE to agree to the GPL to
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:49:42 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think what he's saying is roughly: 1: if A has no license to
distribute the software, puts it on a server, and B downloads it, why
is B guilty of copyright infringement if it's A who lacked a license
to distribute; or 2: why is B *not*
On Thursday 14 July 2005 03:21 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:49:42 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think what he's saying is roughly: 1: if A has no license to
distribute the software, puts it on a server, and B downloads it, why
is B guilty of copyright infringement if it's
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possibly... I really don't know. I think the question is worth exploring. I
don't think that Specht v. Netscape is helpful here because it was a contract
relating to terms outside of copyright and had a whole bunch of interesting
things
On 7/12/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That
copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission from
the owner. If that's not the way you read 106(1), then downloading
copyrighted mp3s off
. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:34 PM
To: Sean Kellogg
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd Help-About $KDE-app tab calls the
GPL License Agreement, ie; a contract.
On 7/12/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you
On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for Specht V. Netscape, Michael, I know you are a smart guy who is good
with citations; it boggles me that you would reference this case. This case
deals with the enforceability of click-wrap licenses, with particular
attention to forced
On 7/13/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Click-wrapping the GPL is of course insane ...
Er, that is, it's IMHO silly to argue that click-wrapping the GPL
makes some stray anti-patent term binding on people on whom it would
otherwise not be, and insane to compound the error by
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:31:37PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That
copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission from
the owner. If that's not the way you read 106(1), then downloading
On 7/12/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have seen software that has a click-thru GPL before. I can't remember
offhand what the software was, but Ive definitely seen it.
Cygwin / MinGW setup.exe, for instance, IIRC.
Cheers,
- Michael
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 03:14:22PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:31:37PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That
copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission
from
the
On 7/13/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#1 is why is the Napster downloader guilty; I don't have an answer to that
(though I believe that's only due to my poor understanding of copyright law,
and not evidence supporting Sean's argument).
As I see it, the Napster downloader isn't
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If individual A is authorized to distribute software, and individual B
initiates an action that results in a copy being made of that software from
A's distribution server, has B violated the original author's 106(1) rights?
Or, as I believe Glenn is
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:49:42PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think what he's saying is roughly: 1: if A has no license to distribute
the software, puts it on a server, and B downloads it, why is B guilty of
copyright infringement if it's A who lacked a license to distribute; or
2: why is B
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 02:40 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for Specht V. Netscape, Michael, I know you are a smart guy who is
good with citations; it boggles me that you would reference this case.
This case deals with the
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:10 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If individual A is authorized to distribute software, and individual B
initiates an action that results in a copy being made of that software
from A's distribution server, has B violated the
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The
question is whether its okay to mandate acceptance of the GPL at
download.
Since the GPL itself does not require you to accept it unless you want to
modify or
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The
question is whether its okay to mandate acceptance of the GPL at download.
I am suggesting that you have to agree to it in order to avoid copyright
On 7/10/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:56:50AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Maybe impractical, but so far I can't see why they should be non-free.
Now you're claiming that an impractical license can be free? I think
your notion of what is free is so
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses are impractical and Marco
agreed with you. You said nothing about the license contents.
Chris, a click-wrap license allowing redistribution would contain a clause
requiring that
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:53:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses are impractical and Marco
agreed with you. You said nothing about the license contents.
Chris, a click-wrap license
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:53:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses are impractical and Marco
agreed with you. You said
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 01:18 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:53:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses
On 7/12/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:39:35AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Glenn, you said that click-wrap licenses are impractical and Marco
agreed with you. You said nothing about the license contents.
Chris, a click-wrap license allowing
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:14:29PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Well, like I said... I can't fault your logic. The GPL's use provisions, or
more accurately its express disclaimer there of, do not require consent.
BUT, everyone has to consent to the GPL when you download a copy of it. By
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 08:06 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:14:29PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Well, like I said... I can't fault your logic. The GPL's use
provisions, or more accurately its express disclaimer there of, do not
require consent. BUT, everyone has to
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:01:25PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
That's not the definition of a click-wrap license. I, as the software
developer, can require positive verification that you accept whatever license
I so deem and yet allow you to redistribute without such verification. Not
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:31:37PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That
copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission from
the
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:23:14PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
So what you're saying is not that the contents of the license are the
problem, but that fact that the user is required to acknowledge that
the license has been displayed to them is the burdensome requirement?
Is that right?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there's wide agreement here that forced click-wrap licenses
are non-free, and very impractical. I've seen installers in Windows
Maybe impractical, but so far I can't see why they should be non-free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:56:50AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Maybe impractical, but so far I can't see why they should be non-free.
Now you're claiming that an impractical license can be free? I think
your notion of what is free is so patently absurd that I can't be
bothered to argue with
On Sunday 10 July 2005 03:21 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:56:50AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Maybe impractical, but so far I can't see why they should be non-free.
Now you're claiming that an impractical license can be free? I think
your notion of what is free is so
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 you HAVE to agree
to the GPL to download the software, click wrap or not, so its not
Sean Kellogg said on Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:11:24PM -0700,:
some on the list, is that the GPL contains certain warranty waiver
provisions that cannot be done in a pure license... which means
Hmmm
there must be a contract and it must be agreed to (in the GPL's
case, it is
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 01:50:27PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
AFAIK, RMS FSF are of view that software under the GPL does not
require an `I agree' button. Do not have a link ready on hand right
now.
That's what he means by agreed to by conduct; for example, if
the only means you have
On Saturday 09 July 2005 01:38 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 01:50:27PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
AFAIK, RMS FSF are of view that software under the GPL does not
require an `I agree' button. Do not have a link ready on hand right
now.
That's what he means by
package kde
severity 317359 wishlist
thanks
...summarian conclusion: Just remove Agreement from those tabs, leave
License on them. ;o)
...subject 'n justification tells the story, further discussion can be
found on Groklaw and likely d-legal too, the GPL is a license because it
gives a
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:08:17PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
package kde
severity 317359 wishlist
thanks
...summarian conclusion: Just remove Agreement from those tabs, leave
License on them. ;o)
...subject 'n justification tells the story, further discussion can be
found on
On Friday 08 July 2005 04:08 am, Riku Voipio wrote:
package kde
severity 317359 wishlist
thanks
...summarian conclusion: Just remove Agreement from those tabs, leave
License on them. ;o)
...subject 'n justification tells the story, further discussion can be
found on Groklaw and
(dropped CC's; it's probably not productive for the actual contract-or-not
debates to go to the bug, since we're not likely to come to a firm conclusion
anyway)
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:11:24PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
The debian-legal crowd is of several opinions. My own, shared by some on
On Friday 08 July 2005 02:37 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(dropped CC's; it's probably not productive for the actual contract-or-not
debates to go to the bug, since we're not likely to come to a firm
conclusion anyway)
Sounds good to me.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:11:24PM -0700, Sean Kellogg
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 04:55:30PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
All true... except you can't put in a legal contract This is X when in
fact
it is a Y. The law, while often blind, is not that blind. Consider Work
for Hire, saying something is a Work for Hire in an employment contract will
46 matches
Mail list logo
