Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] If it is a
license from the copyright holders, than the only ones who can sue
Debian for distribution of sourceless GPL'ed works are, er, the people
who originally gave out those works in that form. I understand there is
some contention around
MJ Ray wrote:
While fairly simple, it is totally incorrect, as public distribution in
breach of copyright carries criminal liability in England, as I previously
posted. See the Copyright Designs and Patents Act as amended, under
the criminal liability heading.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:10:37PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
While fairly simple, it is totally incorrect, as public distribution in
breach of copyright carries criminal liability in England, as I previously
posted. See the Copyright Designs and Patents Act as amended,
[Cross posting cut out, because this isn't particularly germane to the
other lists.]
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
IANAL and everything, but all times we discussed the issue the
opinion that prevaled, was that the firmware do not constitute a
derivative work of the kernel,
This is
On 10/17/06 15:06, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
I agree.
Out of curiosity, I asked
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
So, do you have anything to
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 11:42:14PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 07:07:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Those liabilities occur in either case, so they're not particularly
interesting to discuss.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 07:07:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Those liabilities occur in either case, so
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 02:16:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Regardless, that distribution in compliance with relevant licenses
doesn't necessarily absolve you of all liabilities is well known, and
not an issue I'm terribly intersted in discussing in the abstract.
[And if for some reason
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention
that
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:06:19 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
[...]
baring competent legal advice to the contrary,[1] distributing
sourceless GPLed works is not clear of legal liability. Doing
otherwise may put ourselves and our mirror operators in
Francesco Poli writes:
What makes you think that every and each copyright holder acted in good
faith when started to distribute firmware under the terms of the GNU GPL
v2, while keeping the source code secret?
Some copyright holder could be deliberately preparing a trap, in order
to be able
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
distribute *only* if we distribute source. So, GPLed sourceless == NO
PERMISSON.
I will list the
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
distribute *only* if we
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention
that you're not a lawyer.
That should be abundantly
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Yes, I'm not a lawyer. Do not rely on anything I say
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
So what? Distributing GPL works *with* sources is also not clear of
legal liability.
Those liabilities occur in either case, so they're not particularly
interesting to discuss. Doing something that is against the letter and
spirit of a software
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:06:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Anthony,
On 10/6/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd defer to Larry Doolittle on this one, but I think unless we have
some reason to think there is another form used as source code, it's
fine to consider the only codes our source code - for all we know, it
was written that way. Best of all would be
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 11:18:09AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
On 10/6/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd defer to Larry Doolittle on this one, but I think unless we have
some reason to think there is another form used as source code, it's
fine to consider the only codes our source code -
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is not reasonable for the project to vote on questions of legality, nor
is it appropriate to rely on debian-legal for questions of legality. If the
May I remind that debian-legal is a mailing list ?
relevant
In linux.debian.legal Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since i am seen as not trusthy to analyze such problems, i think to deblock
this situation, it would be best to have a statement from debian-legal to back
those claims (or to claim i am wrong in the above).
In the context of the kernel I
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:28:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
There is some claims that some of those blobs represent just register dumps,
This is a strawman, and Sven knows this as I have told him quite plainly
that this is not my claim.
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:28:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
There is some claims that some of those blobs represent just register dumps,
This is a strawman, and Sven knows this as I have told him quite plainly
that this is
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The *relevant* claim I have made is that it is
inappropriate to use our GR mechanism to attempt to *decide* whether GPLed
drivers cause a distribution problem. The release team, the ftp team, and I
suspect even most of the kernel team have no interest
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi debian-legal, ...
I've trimmed -release, as luk suggested it's unwelcome there.
[...] The real problem is that there are a certain
amount of firmware in the kernel, embedded in the drivers, which have no
license notice whatsoever, and as thus fall
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
[Restricting to -legal, feel free to widen the audience if neccessary]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers don't
cause
any kind of distribution problem,
Hi debian-legal, ...
It seems the firmware kernel issue has reached a deadpoint, as there is some
widely different interpretation of the meaning of the GPL over sourceless
code.
For some background, the kernel/firmware wiki page includes both a proposed
GR, the draft position statement by the
[Restricting to -legal, feel free to widen the audience if neccessary]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers don't cause
any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly believe that the GPL clause
saying that all the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The main point is that the actual reason for this mess is that those vendors
provided these firmware blobs without thinking of the implication, and the
upstream kernel folk took them in because it was more convenient to consider
them as data (to the
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:28:20 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly believe
that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights under the
GPL are lost if you cannot abide
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
believe that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights
under the GPL are lost if you cannot abide by all points,
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
believe that the GPL
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
So the real question is whether we want to do that, whether in the
particular cases there's in fact any doubt, etc.
A quick survey based on the size of the firmware blobs suggests 1/3 of them
may be register dumps, while 2/3 are most
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
believe that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights
under the GPL are
38 matches
Mail list logo
