-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2006-10-18, Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(4) In other places they claim they're doing this because
GNU, Debian, and the BSDs are requiring copyright transfer as
well [1]. Well I know that some GNU projects recommend it (emacs,
libstdc++),
Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2006-10-18, Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(4) In other places they claim they're doing this because GNU,
Debian, and the BSDs are requiring copyright transfer as well
[1]. Well I know that some GNU projects recommend it (emacs,
libstdc++), but by
Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On a related subject, we have developed a kernel mode driver for our
Microsoft Wireless Optical Mice with Tilt Wheel Technology,
complete with device file in /dev and all needed ioctls necessary
for querying signal strength, battery life status, and other
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
benefitting the general public
Hey dak, care to address the following (2nd one below) Dan's comment
regarding the public?
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/an-open-source-ceo-on-the-gplv3/#comments
--
Crosbie Fitch // Oct 18th 2006 at 4:03 am
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
benefitting the general public
Hey dak, care to address the following (2nd one below) Dan's comment
regarding the public?
Just a rant, and obviously so.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/off-the-record/#comments
--
Dan Lyons // Oct 17th 2006 at 7:52 am
Translation: Nothing to worry about here, folks. Just move along,
Dan is replying there to a comment I posted.
Dan's blog
Qui, 2006-10-19 às 14:31 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
The FSF does not even control ...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
the intent is to ... control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
eh?
How very manipulative of you. A pity you
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
intended by the licensor: yes, the copyright holder has the control
There are limitations, such as free (of copyright control) distribution
of copies lawfully made and free (of copyright control) modification,
copying, and distribution of those additional exact
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
intended by the licensor: yes, the copyright holder has the control
There are limitations, such as free (of copyright control) distribution
of copies lawfully made and free (of copyright control) modification,
James Carlson wrote:
Open Solaris requries a joint copyright arrangement. You can read the
details here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/sun_contributor_agreement/
As the author you, of course, retain your copyright interest. You
don't have to give that away.
Eh? But it
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[...]
Dan's blog entry quoted a lawyer who's being consulted during the draftign
of GPLv3 who said that parts of GPLv3 aren't legally sound.
He said that GPLv3 draft is even worse than GPLv2 which nobody
understands. The legally unsound bit was about the FSF position
Go to doctor, mini-RMS.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First sale, moron. Wanna have a copy of Emacs (modified)under draconian
EULA-style contract imposing forbearance from rights granted to users
under the GPL and without an offer to obtain source code? Ten EUROs.
You are drunk enough as it is.
--
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[...]
Dan's blog entry quoted a lawyer who's being consulted during the draftign
of GPLv3 who said that parts of GPLv3 aren't legally sound.
He said that GPLv3 draft is even worse than GPLv2 which nobody
understands.
Drazen Kacar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James Carlson wrote:
Open Solaris requries a joint copyright arrangement. You can read the
details here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/sun_contributor_agreement/
As the author you, of course, retain your copyright interest. You
Drazen Kacar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James Carlson wrote:
Open Solaris requries a joint copyright arrangement. You can read the
details here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/sun_contributor_agreement/
As the author you, of course, retain your copyright interest. You
Drazen Kacar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eh? But it says:
You agree never to assert against Sun or its licensees or transferees
any moral rights therein.
That's void under my local copyright law, but the provision certainly is
giving copyright rights away. And then:
Why is that void in you
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The legally unsound bit was about the FSF position regarding
dynamic linking.
Which is not codified in either license since
Read the latest draft, moron.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Casper H.S. Dik writes:
Why is that void in you rlocal law? (Just interested).
In some jurisdictions you are not permitted to give up your moral
rights.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss
19 matches
Mail list logo
