On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:41:30 +0200, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> 17 USC 117 covers modifications required to run programs when one
> ones a copy. IMO that would include linking code to a library,
>
> I don't think so. Think of a "package" in source
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm not sure about copyright
>> misuse (another defense against FSF's SCOish claims) -- seems to be
>> pure US concept. Classic unenforceable unfair contract terms thing
>
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> I'm not sure about copyright
> misuse (another defense against FSF's SCOish claims) -- seems to be
> pure US concept. Classic unenforceable unfair contract terms thing
> comes pretty close, but the FSF stubbornly claims tha
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> [plonked] David Kastrup writes:
>> > What would it mean to "enforce" a unilateral permission?
>>
>> It would mean to produce it as a defense against an infringement claim by
>> the copyright owner.
>
> Right.
I'd not call
BTW, apropos
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > [plonked] David Kastrup writes:
^^^
and
> > > What would it mean to "enforce" a unilateral permission?
^
in the !GPL
http://groups.google.
$B'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$(B
$B'$'$'$=P2q$$A*2](B $B#67n9f!!#1=5L\9f!!(B $B!!'$'$'$(B
$B'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$'$(B
$B!!!z!z!z!z!!:#=5$N$*>)$a%5%$%H!!!z!z!z!z(B
$B7k:'Ajhttp://www.getluck3.net/?toppage
$B!
John Hasler wrote:
>
> [plonked] David Kastrup writes:
> > What would it mean to "enforce" a unilateral permission?
>
> It would mean to produce it as a defense against an infringement claim by
> the copyright owner.
Right.
http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/49f50be07eddfef7
r
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is hilarious.
>
> http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2005-May/000260.html
> (Help needed dealing with ex-employer violating GPL)
Well, the guy is totally confused. Of course the code he wrote is
likely owned by the company that p
This is hilarious.
http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2005-May/000260.html
(Help needed dealing with ex-employer violating GPL)
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/list
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Announce-NYCBUG] Meeting June 01: Phillip Moore: OSS in Large
Enterprises
June 01, 2005
Phillip Moore: Open Source Software
6 pm, Soho Apple Store at 103 Prince Street
A presentation will be made on The Evolving Role of Open Source Software in
Large En
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> 17 USC 117 covers modifications required to run programs when one
ones a copy. IMO that would include linking code to a library,
I don't think so. Think of a "package" in source code - a tarball of
linked (some modules reference others modules) components. What does
it h
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> > But not here. AFAIK, except bug fixing, the German law doesn't have
> > 17 USC 117 like exception for (private) software "Bearbeitungen"
> > (copyrightable derivative works) and "Umgestaltungen" (uncopyrightable
>
> Are you sure? I thought the EU copyright directive requir
12 matches
Mail list logo
