* Arnoud Engelfriet:
Florian Weimer wrote:
| You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
| convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
| in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
| of having them make modifications
Florian Weimer wrote:
| You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
| convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
| in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
| of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or
FW GPLv3 makes it pretty clear that Dreamhost can take your rights away
So all that effort of writing Free Software and the result is there is
Johnny, sitting at the shell prompt, unable to see the source code
to anything behind it if they decide to close it.
Yes, I find the
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Florian Weimer wrote:
| You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
| convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
| in force. You may convey covered works to others for
\John Halton\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008 9:07 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My first question would be whether those files would contain sufficient
creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. If they don't
(and I am not sure something like
FW GPLv3 makes it pretty clear that Dreamhost can take your rights away
So all that effort of writing Free Software and the result is there is
Johnny, sitting at the shell prompt, unable to see the source code
to anything behind it if they decide to close it.
Yes, I find the
On Jan 24, 2008 10:48 PM, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (off-list):
Maybe I'm missing someone, but in this scenario, isn't it the user who logs
in, not the administrator, making the copy? The administrator wouldn't
be conveying anything since he's not copying. The user is distributing
On Jan 25, 2008 12:07 AM, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can execute things you cannot read:
$ ls -l /bin/ls
---x--x--x 1 root root 77352 2007-01-30 18:51 /bin/ls
Thanks. I stand corrected.
However, presumably for many programs licensed under GPL v.3 there
will be a number of
John Halton wrote:
However, presumably for many programs licensed under GPL v.3 there
will be a number of associated non-executable files (e.g. under /etc)
for which read permissions need to remain in place. If you have a
GPLed package, I'm not sure what the implications are of conveying
the
On Jan 25, 2008 9:07 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My first question would be whether those files would contain sufficient
creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. If they don't
(and I am not sure something like /etc/make.conf is 'creative'), then
GPLv3 cannot
Just curious, e.g., dreamhost.com modifies Debian .debs to produce
their hosting environment, which we Dreamhost users then use on our
shell accounts there.
If I can do
$ cat file
then I should always also be able to cat the source (.deb) to that
same cat, no? (I can at present.)
It's
FW GPLv3 makes it pretty clear that Dreamhost can take your rights away
So all that effort of writing Free Software and the result is there is
Johnny, sitting at the shell prompt, unable to see the source code
to anything behind it if they decide to close it.
I bet the same goes with OLPC then.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[hypothetically]
We here at Gooble know how confusing source code is, and that is why
we are making every effort to never let you see it again, accidentally
or otherwise.
People who are swayed by this will ignore the freedom of the software
they use in any case. Why
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, John Halton wrote:
Maybe I'm missing someone, but in this scenario, isn't it the user who logs
in, not the administrator, making the copy? The administrator wouldn't
be conveying anything since he's not copying. The user is distributing
someone else's software to
Ken Arromdee wrote:
To propagate a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
On Jan 24, 2008 7:41 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is actually a very intriguing question. If I have a shell account
on someone's computer, and I can copy a binary that resides somewhere
in /bin (or wherever), is the work being distributed to me?
toad:~ ls -l /bin/ls
On Thu Jan 24 11:37, John Halton wrote:
It seems clear enough that the administrators of toad are
propagating /bin/ls. And that propagation is one that enables
other parties to make or receive copies. Nor is this mere
interaction ... with no transfer of a copy - *running* /bin/ls would
fit
On Jan 24, 2008 11:41 AM, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu Jan 24 11:37, John Halton wrote:
It seems clear enough that the administrators of toad are
propagating /bin/ls. And that propagation is one that enables
other parties to make or receive copies. Nor is this mere
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Thu Jan 24 11:37, John Halton wrote:
It seems clear enough that the administrators of toad are
propagating /bin/ls. And that propagation is one that enables
other parties to make or receive copies. Nor is this mere
interaction ... with no transfer of a copy -
Dear legal beagles, all I know is if one day I couldn't do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dpkg -l apt-get --print-uris ... wget ...
to examine the .debs that were Debian debs but slightly modified by
Dreamhost (or other such web host), well that would mean the whole
Free Software concept had come to a
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:33:34AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Dear legal beagles, please close this loophole, if any.
As outlined previously in the discussion, I don't think there *is* a
loophole here. Anyone using GPL v.3 software (which includes almost
all GNU software issued since GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So Dear legal beagles, please close this loophole, if any.
To remove this misapprehension: debian-legal is a discussion forum
only. We have no special power to *change* license terms.
If there's a loophole, all we can do is expose it. Addressing the
loophole will be
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That said, I would be *delighted* if someone can show me where I've
gone wrong in my analysis. I don't claim to be a world expert on GPL
v.3!
Here's a 2003 debian-legal discussion about the ASP loophole:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:26:19AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Here's a 2003 debian-legal discussion about the ASP loophole:
URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00755.html
Thanks. The distinction here is that in the classic ASP loophole
situation you are accessing the
On Thu Jan 24 22:02, John Halton wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:26:19AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Here's a 2003 debian-legal discussion about the ASP loophole:
URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00755.html
(Incidentally, I'm assuming that the earlier suggestion of
Just curious, e.g., dreamhost.com modifies Debian .debs to produce
their hosting environment, which we Dreamhost users then use on our
shell accounts there.
If I can do
$ cat file
then I should always also be able to cat the source (.deb) to that
same cat, no? (I can at present.)
Yes I read
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just curious, e.g., dreamhost.com modifies Debian .debs to produce
their hosting environment, which we Dreamhost users then use on our
shell accounts there.
If I can do
$ cat file
then I should always also be able to cat the source (.deb) to that
same cat, no?
Ben Finney wrote:
The answer depends on whether Dreamhost are, under the relevant
jurisdiction, distributing the modified work to you. It could be
argued that they are not: they are merely using the modified work, and
allowing you to access a machine they own; thus, the modified work is
not
28 matches
Mail list logo
