On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:18:55 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:09:02AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
But the FSF is going to lose a lot of credibility, even with the
choir, if they wait until their noses are rubbed in it in the next
lawsuit to admit
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:17:11AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Agreed. But use of a brand name to attempt to stop other people from
giving away the same thing you do under the same name is a bit of a
novelty.
Advertisers have been doing this for years, as have broadcasters.
[There's
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 06:59:23PM +0100, Martin Hardie wrote:
It's nice to see some FSF doubters (I have just been reading this thread in
the archives) and questioning of their speech based copyright vision. I think
I agree with Micahel that precedent is fairly against the FSF and Lessig
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:46:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I agree that I was tacitly assuming that I was writing for people who knew
what debian is (a volunteer free-software group which helps coordinate
-- and relies heavily on -- support from people who are not explicitly
members of the
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 05:54:40PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
In this context, I mean credible analysis of the legal issues. Eben
Moglen and Bruce Perens were both publicly quoted in the lead-in to
the MySQL trial as being confident that MySQL would win a preliminary
injuction on the
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:28:33 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
This is meta discussion about an oversimplification. It's basically
correct, but I don't think the emperor is running around nude, even if
that hat is a bit skimpy.
I don't think claiming that contract law has no
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:55:47PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
As I understand it, generally speaking, a contract has two
parties -- offeror and offeree.
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:04:02 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. However, it's worth noting that these parties are
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:51:22 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't see how this sub-license construction satisfies the mandate
that the recipient automatically receives a license from the original
licensor...
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:08:57PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:53:58 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
(don't use Google Search in the same tab as your GMail session!)
Even better: don't use GMail at all, it has many privacy issues!
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:48:23 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is a license document, and automatically receives is a
license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
granting license is what copyright licenses do.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:48:55PM
I wrote:
Suppose the FSF had gone beyond complaining and threatening when KDE
used Qt under the QPL ...
And negotiating effectively too, of course. I'm glad that Qt is now
QPL/GPL dual licensed, and I prefer the GPL. I don't mean to sound
quite so one-sided here; just because I think the
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:51:19 +0100, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:54:29 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:27:26 +0100, Francesco Poli [...] wrote:
[...]
In my understanding sublicensing means redistributing under a
different
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:21:19 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:09:09PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The GPL isn't law, and its characterization of what's happening under
law when you distribute a modified work is pretty bogus. (The
recipient
Michael Edwards wrote:
Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
it's still performance.
Right, this was the very specific question we were getting to. :-)
In determining the DFSG-freeness of a
Actually, Effects v. Cohen is a prime example of implied license as
an implied provision in the existing contract:
quote section=FN1
The district court initially dismissed the suit, holding that it was
primarily a contract dispute and, as such, did not arise under federal
law. In an opinion
Scripsit Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
I guess I'm convinced. :-)
That the GPL is legally an offer of contract? If so, it's good to
know that the substance of my argument is persuasive to at least one
person besides myself. :-)
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:00:05 +, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got lost somewhere along the way: Why is it important to you whether
the GPL is a contract or not?
To me, personally? It bugs me to see needless conflicts within the
Free Software world caused by GPL interpretations
Michael Edwards wrote:
Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
it's still performance.
Right, this was the very specific question we were getting to. :-)
In determining the DFSG-freeness of a
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
there is a written agreement involved, a court will only find an
implied license as an implied provision in that agreement. As I wrote
before, if anyone can
Actually, Effects v. Cohen is a prime example of implied license as
an implied provision in the existing contract:
quote section=FN1
The district court initially dismissed the suit, holding that it was
primarily a contract dispute and, as such, did not arise under federal
law. In an opinion
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Edwards wrote:
Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
it's still performance.
Right, this was the very
Scripsit Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
I guess I'm convinced. :-)
That the GPL is legally an offer of contract? If so, it's good to
know that the substance of my argument is persuasive to at least one
person besides myself. :-)
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:00:05 +, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got lost somewhere along the way: Why is it important to you whether
the GPL is a contract or not?
To me, personally? It bugs me to see needless conflicts within the
Free Software world caused by GPL interpretations
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:49:08 +0100, Batist Paklons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:49:08 +0100, Batist Paklons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license
under the GPL is
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:41:16 +0100, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
^^
I
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 06:04:36 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry this is so long and meandering...
By comparison with some of the things I write, it's a model of
linearity. :) But my response is necessarily long as well.
I wrote:
There's a reason I used the analogy of You
Thanks, Batist; it's good to hear how this works in a civil law
system. I didn't think it likely that licenses came in a non-contract
form there either. Judging from your comments and from
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/belgium/page1.html , it
sounds like copyright licenses are
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
^^
I don't see where the GPL permits me to sublicense...
That implies a contract
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:41:16 +0100, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:32:02 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The GPL purports to bind the licensor to issue a perpetual (barring
breach) license to copy, sublicense, etc.
^^
I
Thanks, Batist; it's good to hear how this works in a civil law
system. I didn't think it likely that licenses came in a non-contract
form there either. Judging from your comments and from
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/belgium/page1.html , it
sounds like copyright licenses are
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:55:25 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've cited cases about implied licenses under both the 1909 and 1976
Copyright Acts (in the US). As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
derived works) is as an offer of (bilateral)
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:21:32PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But in the case of the GPL, he's not bound. It's just that he's
already issued the license -- or are you talking about some case other
than an author releasing his own works under the GPL?
I don't think he's claiming that
Raul Miller wrote:
[snip]
Are you saying that copyright law is always equivalent to a bilateral
contract?
Far from it. I am saying that:
the legally recognized mechanism for granting a copyright license,
in any jurisdiction I have heard named, is a contract;
there is ample precedent,
Raul -
With regard to secondary publication, if you had in mind sublicensing
by the licensee, I know of no case in which a right to sublicense was
found without reference to a valid bilateral contract. (The Effects
case comes closest, if you buy Kozinski's argument and read a form of
implied
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
derived works) is as an offer of (bilateral) contract, duly accepted
by the licensee, in return
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:19:04PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
derived works) is as an
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:46:43 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Warning: IANAL.
IANAL either. Just interested (at least in the non-legal sense).
1) The (L)GPL is legally an offer of contract, right?
It was claimed during the debian-devel
There has been some discussion on debian-devel recently regarding the
Linux Core Consortium's plan to share build procedures and resulting
object code among several GNU/Linux distros. Their intention is to
satisfy independent software vendors' demands for a set of golden
binaries, including
Warning: IANAL.
1) The (L)GPL is legally an offer of contract, right?
It was claimed during the debian-devel discussion that the LGPL is
somehow a unilateral grant of rights under some legal theory other
than contract, which doesn't make sense to me.
If you agree to the GPL (or LGPL), you do
44 matches
Mail list logo
