On Thu, 12 May 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
And, I might add, this is another respect in which the FSF FAQ verges
upon the dishonest. Since 17 USC 117 explicitly limits the scope of
what can be considered infringement under section 106, it also
nullifies any claims of contributory
Raul wrote:
If we don't do that, we might cause someone or some group (perhaps
some of us) to get stuck with paying openssl.org some heavy
license fee, to release openssl under gpl compatible terms. Or,
maybe we'll create a situation requiring some other sort of
settlement. And, if that's
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is your mistake: it's not the pages that carry protection, it's
the words and illustrations on the pages (as in abstract,
intelectual entities) that carry protection.
I thought copyright was protection for creative
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You inverted the do more and do less. Publishing an arbitrary set of
anthologies is do more as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute permission to
Raul Miller writes:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You inverted the do more and do less. Publishing an arbitrary set of
anthologies is do more as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute
On 5/12/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute permission to distribute binaries. The principle
under Brazilian law seems to be that restrictions on distribution of
sources
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You inverted the do more and do less. Publishing an arbitrary set
of
anthologies is do more as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I don't
think so.
#include stdio.h
int main(int, char**) {
puts(Hi); return 0;
}
What is a dynamically
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I
don't think so.
#include stdio.h
int main(int, char**)
{
puts(Hi);
return 0;
}
What is a
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will do my repeated assertion act: It's a dynamically linked
executable, for the love of $DEITY!
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative effort that went
into
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will do my repeated assertion act: It's a dynamically linked
executable, for the love of $DEITY!
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative effort that went
into them is the selection and arrangement of their contents.
DY-NA-MI-CA-LLY. It
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip arguments which appear, on a somewhat cursory reading, to be 100% correct]
Ok. Now (again) back to the libssl problem.
Is a daemon dx.c that when compiled, links with libsnmp, and
indirectly with libssl, a derivative work of any of
Raul Miller wrote:
The working hello_world program is a collection.
This program (hello_world) taken in isolation will not perform.
This is irrelevant. Its creative status independs of its performance.
You are saying that hello_world in isolation will not perform. Neither
will the debian
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I was not talking about distributing the working hello_world
(if you are referring to the working set of it in RAM, after loaded --
after all, this is the only thing that performs when a file is dynalinked)
Note also that all of the
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Note that your argument contains correct logic but incorrect facts.
libsnmp is more or less BSD licensed (
http://www.net-snmp.org/about/license.html ). It is Quagga that is
GPL'ed. Substitute, say, a GPL'ed HTTP client library in place of
libsnmp, and it's all good.
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I was not talking about distributing the working hello_world
(if you are referring to the working set of it in RAM, after loaded --
after all, this is the only thing that
As I tire of swatting flies with a Howitzer (TM), and have been
neglecting important work in favor of this debate, I will be taking a
bit of a sanity break. (And a sigh of relief was heard across the
land.)
Cheers,
- Michael
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This doesn't do anything for the distributor of copyright infringing
software. 17 USC 117 only protects users of that software.
Stipulate that, _contrary_to_law_, we read mere aggregation to mean
_only_ on storage media and _only_ at
Frankly, Raul, anyone who believes your reading of the Progress
Software v. MySQL decision deserves what he or she gets.
Cheers,
- Michael
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
When I try to reconcile early case law -- just from the US circuit
courts -- on the copies, derivative works, collections, and dungheaps
made during run-time, and which routine uses are infringing and which
aren't, the little engine in my non-lawyer head threatens to
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.a. it specifies (art. 7, XII) that computer programs are protected by
copyrights.
2.b. it further specifies (art. 7 § 1) that computer programs have
specific legal provisions (all contained, nowadays, in our Computer
Programs Law [Lei
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.a. it specifies (art. 7, XII) that computer programs are protected
by
copyrights.
2.b. it further specifies (art. 7 § 1) that computer programs have
specific legal provisions (all contained, nowadays, in our
This book gives a history of how software was granted copyright
protection gradually through case law in the US:
A. CLAPES, Softwars, London, Quorum Books, 1993, 325 p.
I found it both useful and agreeable, albeit slightly outdated being
more than ten years old.
Kind regards
Batist
Raul Miller wrote:
However, on the flip side -- if binaries are the same work as the sources under the eyes of the law, then you can't construct any licenses which treat sources differently from binaries. They're the same. Anyone who has the right to distribute binaries also has the right to
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. Binaries are the same work as (the anthology of) their sources, in
the eye of the Law 9609/98.
If I understand you correctly, this means that under Brazilian law,
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. Binaries are the same work as (the anthology of) their
sources, in the eye of the Law 9609/98.
If I understand you correctly, this means that
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a brocardo (legal axiom) in our doctrine: He who can
do more, can do less (horrid translation to quem pode mais,
pode menos [Quién puede más,
28 matches
Mail list logo
