On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 02:45 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:20:24PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 21:32 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:18:59 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 23:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
[...]
Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and
don't see how it's relevant.
It's
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:20:24PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
[Sorry to let the thread drop for so long]
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 21:32 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
It
[Sorry to let the thread drop for so long]
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 21:32 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free.
The
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
[...]
Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't
see how it's relevant.
It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an
awkward way, thus making the work non-free.
Which terms of this
On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 23:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
[...]
Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't
see how it's relevant.
It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an
Francesco Poli wrote:
On the other hand, maybe the Open Cascade license counts as an
agreement, since the copyright holder says that you have to accept
the license in order to download the software (i.e.: in order to become
a lawful acquirer). Then, after you accepted the license, you are
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:50:12PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I would say that, if I download software from a website, I am not
the one who's creating the new copy: the web server is doing so, to
satisfy my request, and the web server is operated by the copyright
holder of the software (or
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:11:26 + John Halton wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:50:12PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I would say that, if I download software from a website, I am not
the one who's creating the new copy: the web server is doing so, to
satisfy my request, and the web server
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:02:55AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
If this is the case, may I claim that I am a lawful acquirer of the
copy that consists of network packets? At that point, I may claim
that the law allows me to create a copy onto my hard-drive because
it's necessary for the use of
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:45:28 + John Halton wrote:
I don't think there's a problem with making the licence binding on
users or downloaders. Quite the contrary: someone who uses or
downloads the software is performing an act restricted by the
copyright for which a
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Specifically for computer programs, some jurisdictions recognize the
right to load and execute a program as an exclusive right of the
copyright holder. The 1991 EU Copyright Directive for instance explicitly
says
John Halton wrote:
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the copyright holder makes a program available for download
(or permits someone else to do so), then I would say that anyone who
downloads the work is a lawful acquirer and therefore may execute
the work
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if a lawful acquirer is someone who has a right to use it,
why would the Directive need to spell out they have the right to use it?
Well, quite. That's probably why the UK implementation hides it away
in section 50C under the bland
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never seen cases or commentary on this point either. I suppose
it wouldn't be worth the lawsuit. Even if my interpretation were to
prevail, all it gets someone is the right to execute the software
on the one computer he downloaded
John Halton wrote:
It's like saying, Someone who has the right to park their car in this
parking space has the right to drive their car onto that parking
space.
Now I see what you mean. Fair point, I'll have to be a little more
nuanced in my responses here.
I've never seen cases or commentary
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:51:01 + John Halton wrote:
[...]
However, when you download software, you are not acquiring an existing
copy - you are creating a new one. Hence Article 5(1) does not apply.
Wait, who's creating the new copy, though?
I would say that, if I download software from a
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:44:16 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:45:28 + John Halton wrote:
I don't think there's a problem with making the licence binding on
users or downloaders. Quite the contrary: someone who uses or
downloads the
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
Greetings,
I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable
engineering tool under LGPL.
That was my goal when I started to look at packaging OpenCascade. But
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:53:29 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Greetings,
Hello! :)
I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable
engineering tool under LGPL.
As a personal note, I can say that Salomé looks like a pretty
interesting tool: I already knew about it (even
On 20/12/2007, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This clause attempts to make the license legally binding even to people
who merely use or download the software (sections 2, 3, and 13 restate
the same concept).
This goes beyond what copyright laws (at least in some jurisdictions)
allow
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
Greetings,
I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable
engineering tool under LGPL.
That was my goal when I started to look at packaging OpenCascade. But
there is a lot of work,
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:37:07 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
[...]
Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me
vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any
changes have to be sent back.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:45:28 + John Halton wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This clause attempts to make the license legally binding even to
people who merely use or download the software (sections 2, 3, and
13 restate the same concept).
This goes beyond
Greetings,
I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable
engineering tool under LGPL.
It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free.
The license is at: http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/
There were two discussions on the OpenCascade license last
On 19/12/2007, Adam C Powell IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The preamble is:
In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like
with certain differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE
Technology within commercial environments and you are obliged to
Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
Greetings,
I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable
engineering tool under LGPL.
That was my goal when I started to look at packaging OpenCascade. But
there is a lot of work, as Salomé depends on a lot of libraries or
softwares that are not
27 matches
Mail list logo
