"Ken Arromdee" wrote in message
news:20090322071908.98b07b...@violet.rahul.net...
First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US.
Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/case.html
Read carefully the s
>> First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US.
>Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/case.html
Read carefully the sections describing 602(a), particularly page 148.
# copies that are not subject to
"Ken Arromdee" wrote:
First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US.
Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing.
IANAL, IANADD.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
As I pointed out, in the US, First Sale is in title 17, chapter 1, section 109.
# Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a
# particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any
# person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of
# the
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Monday 16 March 2009 04:17:35 am MJ Ray wrote:
> > Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law
> > > misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of
> > > copyright law. [...]
> >
> > Distribution is mentioned explici
On Monday 16 March 2009 04:17:35 am MJ Ray wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law
> > misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of
> > copyright law. [...]
>
> Distribution is mentioned explicitly as secondary infringement of
>
On Friday 13 March 2009 04:54:49 pm Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:45:38 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> > On Friday 13 March 2009 03:23:55 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Alexander Block writes:
> > >
> > > > So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
> > > > De
* Francesco Poli [090315 17:22]:
> Your main point seems to be that, apart from some fringe cases (people
> misusing the term as if it were equivalent to "shareware"), there's no
> serious dispute as to what "public domain" means.
There is the problem with US goverment works. Those are public dom
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law
> misunderstandings, the right to redistribute is not a matter of
> copyright law. [...]
Distribution is mentioned explicitly as secondary infringement of
copyright in UK legislation (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 05:22:54PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Your main point seems to be that, apart from some fringe cases (people
> misusing the term as if it were equivalent to "shareware"), there's no
> serious dispute as to what "public domain" means.
More or less, yes.
>
> You're luck
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:18:16 +0200 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > As I said, the laws *do* use that term...
>
> My mistake, sorry. Still, the main point stands.
Your main point seems to be that, apart from some fringe cases (p
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
> The CC public domain dedication (one of the few things Creative Commons
> got right, IMHO), is much more verbose:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
There is also CC0, which is intended as a more universal PD dedication
h
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:05:51PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> As I said, the laws *do* use that term...
My mistake, sorry. Still, the main point stands.
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland
http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/
signa
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:37:58 +0200 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:56:01AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I think this is a bit vague, since there's no clear explicit
> > definition of "public domain" in copyright laws I am aware of.
>
> Laws don't define all the phra
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:56:01AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I think this is a bit vague, since there's no clear explicit
> definition of "public domain" in copyright laws I am aware of.
Laws don't define all the phrases they use, and they generally avoid defining
phrases they don't use. Thi
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:14:32 +0200 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > The Expat license terms http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>
> > are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent.
>
> For some scripts, even that is excessi
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> The Expat license terms http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>
> are very simple and seem closest to his apparent intent.
For some scripts, even that is excessively long.
What I personally use is a note of the form "You may treat this
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> 109 has this:
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular
> copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized
> by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to
>
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Francesco Poli wrote:
> U.S. copyright law [1] states, in section 106:
>
> [...]
> | the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do
> | and to authorize any of the following:
> [...]
> | (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work
Alexander Block wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not
great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be
better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of
that. Best course of action is to request relicensing.
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:45:38 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Friday 13 March 2009 03:23:55 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> > Alexander Block writes:
> >
> > > So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
> > > Debian?
> >
> > It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the w
On Friday 13 March 2009 03:23:55 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> Alexander Block writes:
>
> > So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
> > Debian?
>
> It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work.
Just in the interest of clearing up common copyright law misunde
Alexander Block writes:
> So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
> Debian?
It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work.
> If not, I'm going to ask the author (Matt Johnston) if he can send
> me a version with a modified copyright notice.
You would d
Alexander Block writes:
> So does this mean that it's not possible to use this script inside
> Debian?
It means that Debian has no license to redistribute the work.
> If not, I'm going to ask the author (Matt Johnston) if he can send
> me a version with a modified copyright notice.
You would d
MJ Ray wrote:
Alexander Block wrote:
I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying.
I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a
small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice:
# (c) 2004 Matt Johnston
# This code may be fr
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Alexander Block wrote:
Hello,
I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying.
I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains
a small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal
notice:
# (c) 2004 Matt Johnston
#
Alexander Block wrote:
> I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying.
>
> I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a
> small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice:
>
> # (c) 2004 Matt Johnston
> # This code may be freely used
Alexander Block wrote:
Hello,
I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying.
I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a
small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice:
# (c) 2004 Matt Johnston
# This code may be freely used a
Hello,
I'm not in this list, please set me in CC when replying.
I'm packaging a script (cnetworkmanager) at the moment which contains a
small python script [1] that contains a very short copyright/legal notice:
# (c) 2004 Matt Johnston
# This code may be freely used and modified for any purp
29 matches
Mail list logo
