The Original post was simply letting everyone know that upstream
changed their license. If you have an issue with that, they would be
the ones to address it, not anyone here in Fedora land.
Technically, if upstream bungled its relicencing, Fedora has no grounds to
redistribute under the new
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:31:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Look at it this way: it's the *project* which is in the exposed,
dangerous position, not the contributors. You're arguing it almost the
opposite way.
That must be a misunderstanding. Perhaps as a result of reading too quickly.
I've
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:34:46 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
The Original post was simply letting everyone know that upstream
changed their license. If you have an issue with that, they would be
the ones to address it, not anyone here in Fedora land.
Technically, if upstream bungled its
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:57:21 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Do you think a few more verdicts like that will influence small FLOSS
projects? In that they will not apply proposed fixes faster, faster,
faster,
You complained no one here was a lawyer and any residual changes would be
deemed
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 22:09 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:33:26 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with
9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as*
*a* *matter* *of* *law*
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 12:21 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:57:21 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Do you think a few more verdicts like that will influence small FLOSS
projects? In that they will not apply proposed fixes faster, faster,
faster,
You complained
...snip...
Does this thread need to continue on this list?
IMHO:
If you have an issue, please contact the upstream developers
and work it out. If you are unsure, please consult a lawyer.
The Original post was simply letting everyone know that upstream
changed their license. If you have an
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:30:50 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
What if the main creators of the software prefer acknowledging substantial
contributions with proper attribution and copyright notice in the file
preambles?
I don't think what the main creators decide to acknowledge (or not) has
any
Hi.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:10:48 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote:
How could they have changed the license without asking contributors?
I have periodically translated the messages, I believe I have some
patches there and nobody had asked me.
I did get asked about some (rather trivial) functions
On 2012-07-09, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:10:48 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote:
As of 3.3-beta1, Audacious is now officially under a two-clause BSD
license (previously GPLv3). Some plugins (separate package) are still
under other licenses, however.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:00:50 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:30:50 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
What if the main creators of the software prefer acknowledging substantial
contributions with proper attribution and copyright notice in the file
preambles?
I don't
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:03:02 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote:
Have you had your name and a copyright statement in any source file?
Obviously not. I just remember some patches into plugins and they have
been removed probably.
The plugins are a different source package and a different Fedora
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 07/09/2012 03:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of
it,
I don't think this is true.
Agreed.
On 07/10/2012 07:06 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 07/09/2012 03:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it,
I
On 07/10/2012 05:22 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
This may be another chance for smartasses to jump in with general legal
pedantry, but I don't consider that helpful.
All accurate legal interpretations are essentially pedantry.
What I don't consider helpful is making broad generalizations about
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:57:52 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 07/10/2012 05:22 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
This may be another chance for smartasses to jump in with general legal
pedantry, but I don't consider that helpful.
All accurate legal interpretations are essentially pedantry.
This
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:21:12PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Pedantry alone wouldn't be a bad thing. Lack of accuracy is what makes it
bad. Combine pedantry with accuracy, and this thread may become helpful.
But instead, there is a lot of speculation and assumptions, and
rose-coloured
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Saying things like:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of
it,
is inaccurate and dangerous. It's entirely appropriate to
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:45:15PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Saying things like:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:52:19 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:45:15PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Saying things like:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Saying things like:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:19:09 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
Copyright is automatic under Berne.
Which only means that you don't need to apply for copyright at any
government office.
But copyright on _what_? What comprises a copyright work? Single words?
Single lines of code? Trivial/obvious code
On 07/10/2012 11:05 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:19:09 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
Copyright is automatic under Berne.
Which only means that you don't need to apply for copyright at any
government office.
But copyright on _what_? What comprises a copyright work? Single
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 20:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:19:09 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
Copyright is automatic under Berne.
Which only means that you don't need to apply for copyright at any
government office.
But copyright on _what_? What comprises a
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:20:32 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
Can you stop the useless hyperbole ?
Sure, can the useless generalization and pedantry stop, too?
The reason why nobody is telling you a hard rule is that there are no
hard rules, but often it will be decided on case by case basis.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:52:19 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:45:15PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I wrote that in the context of files giving credit to *some* people
[*],
which could (!) be an
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with
9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as*
*a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. And also told Oracle that it was very limited what they could
claim as damage caused by the copyright infringement over those 9
lines.
Very limited in the context of billion dollar lawsuits.
Statutory
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:48:52PM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with
9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as*
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:33:26 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with
9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as*
*a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9
lines.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with
9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as*
*a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:33:26 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with
9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as*
*a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9
lines.
On 2012-07-05, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
As of 3.3-beta1, Audacious is now officially under a two-clause BSD
license (previously GPLv3). Some plugins (separate package) are still
under other licenses, however.
How could they have changed the license without asking
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:10:48 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote:
As of 3.3-beta1, Audacious is now officially under a two-clause BSD
license (previously GPLv3). Some plugins (separate package) are still
under other licenses, however.
How could they have changed the license without asking
For a point of accuracy—
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Have you had your name and a copyright statement in any source file?
To highlight that you've been the [primary] author of that file? If not,
you're not a full/official author to have a stake
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
That someone's name wasn't listed in the right places may _explain_ their
non-inclusion in a copyright change discussion
That seems to be what is being stated.
Perhaps his contributions were too insignificant to earn
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:17:09 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
For a point of accuracy—
Or not. ;-)
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Have you had your name and a copyright statement in any source file?
To highlight that you've been the [primary] author of that file? If
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:17:02PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it,
I don't think this is true.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel
On 07/09/2012 03:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it,
I don't think this is true.
Agreed. It is my opinion that this is not the case, assuming that the
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it,
This is not true, and it's the point I was responding to correct.
(I
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:21:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:17:02PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it,
I don't think this
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:47:40PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Without proper attribution, e.g. in a commit message [of the merge done by
a _different_ person] or in the preamble or inline, without a contributor
explicitly requesting to be credited _anywhere at all_, how to keep track
of
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:36:25 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It's certainly possible for contributions to be so minor that they gain
no copyright.
I _do_ _not_ _know_ about what level of contributions we talk to. Whether
they have been one-line fixes of bugs or typos, dozens of lines, or even
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:52:23 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:47:40PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Without proper attribution, e.g. in a commit message [of the merge done by
a _different_ person] or in the preamble or inline, without a contributor
explicitly
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:30:50 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 07/09/2012 03:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of
it,
I don't think this is true.
You need to get the permission of everyone who contributed code to the
GPL'd codebase, to convert to the BSD license. Not sure I can comment
on translations. It's far easier to convert from BSD to GPL,
specifically because the BSD is so permissive. One theoretically
supposes somebody might have
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 01:36:14AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
What if the main creators of the software prefer acknowledging substantial
contributions with proper attribution and copyright notice in the file
preambles? They do list different names in different files, and there are
only
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 10:27:37PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:52:23 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Revision control or some sort of out-of-band tracking. It's the
project's responsibility, not the copyright holder's.
That's hardly feasible and not accurate enough
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
If
you're not able to keep track of all your copyright holders then
changing the license is something you should only do with the aid of
good lawyers.
While the pendantics do have a pendantic point, in practice the
49 matches
Mail list logo
