On Jun 2, 1:02 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Qua, 2007-05-30 às 20:35 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
Can anyone tell a single right MS-EULA grants under copyright law which
YOU DON'T ALREADY HAVE? I can't see any...
And therefore it's NOT a copyright license but a dumb
On May 28, 2:39 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:04 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
And therefore the GPL is more of a copyright license, whereas the MS-
EULA
is more of a contract -- since the MS-EULA _takes away_ rights one
would
otherwise have,
On Jun 2, 12:56 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Qua, 2007-05-30 às 20:33 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 28, 2:39 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:04 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
And therefore the GPL is more of a copyright
mike3 writes:
How could I drop them if I'm not the one who made the license?
By drop them he means ignore them as unenforceable. I would suggest
consulting a lawyer first.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
mike3 writes:
MS-EULA takes away certain fair use rights like making backup copies
for your own personal use.
That is a statutory right, not a fair use right.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Qua, 2007-05-30 às 20:33 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 28, 2:39 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:04 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
And therefore the GPL is more of a copyright license, whereas the MS-
David Kastrup writes:
That is perfectly acceptable and has nothing to do with copyright.
Copyright comes into play once you sell or otherwise transfer
Copyright can come into play with the owner transferring a copy. For
example if you display an original painting of yours and I photograph it
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
That is perfectly acceptable and has nothing to do with copyright.
Copyright comes into play once you sell or otherwise transfer
Copyright can come into play with the owner transferring a copy.
Where is the contradiction?
For
I wrote:
Copyright can come into play with the owner transferring a copy.
Should read ...without the owner transferring
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup writes:
Last time I looked, the owner of a Michelangelo painting does not have
the copyright on the painting. He has, however, the power to determine
who may take photographs of it.
He has the power to put it where no one can get near it
David Kastrup writes:
You will find that museums, even though they put paintings on public
display, have the right to stop people from taking photographs of the
paintings.
In order to photograph those paintings one must enter the museum's
property. The museum has the right to limit what
Qui, 2007-05-31 às 12:16 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
For some years Microsoft's EULA removes your right to privacy. It also
explicitly allows Microsoft to inspect your premises for compliance, as
well as administrate your machines.
So then how is it just a copyright license, if you are
Qua, 2007-05-30 às 20:35 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
Can anyone tell a single right MS-EULA grants under copyright law which
YOU DON'T ALREADY HAVE? I can't see any...
And therefore it's NOT a copyright license but a dumb contract
that only creates MORE restrictions.
It's a copyright
Rui writes:
It's part of their conditions for accepting the copy. You either accept
them or you don't.
It is part of their conditions for selling you a tangible object which
happens to embody a copy of a work on which they hold copyright. They will
give you the copy if you give them some money
Rui writes:
If it was a contract, maybe you could drop the abusive clauses and move
on. As it is, if you don't accept that, you should destroy your copy.
It is not a copyright license unless it licenses some of the exclusive
rights of the copyright owner. Ownership or possession of a copy is
Email? Did you mean a Usenet posting?
gnu-misc-discuss is a mailing list, it then gets piped through a
email-NNTP program, so that you can read/reply to it via NNTP.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
mike3 writes:
Email? Did you mean a Usenet posting?
Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On May 31, 6:38 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
Email? Did you mean a Usenet posting?
Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup.
Really. I didn't know, I just thought it was a newsgroup.
So then everything here is emails? Whoa...
--
John Hasler
On May 31, 6:38 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
Email? Did you mean a Usenet posting?
Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup.
Really. I didn't know, I just thought it was a newsgroup.
So then everything here is emails? Whoa...
--
John Hasler
On May 28, 1:06 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dom, 2007-05-27 às 14:56 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
be described as a copyright license. In fact, most copyright licenses
--those between authors and publishers for example-- are contracts as well.
No, there are
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup.
Really. I didn't know, I just thought it was a newsgroup.
So then everything here is emails? Whoa...
No, it's both. Some people read it and post to it through usenet,
On May 28, 2:18 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:05 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
Any response?
Please respond, I'd really like to know if I've finally gotten this
understood.
I already said in another email that I think you're starting to get it.
On May 28, 1:43 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
So then Microsoft's agreement is not a good one.
That's up to the parties, isn't it? I certainly would not agree to it but
others are free to do as they please.
I don't like it either.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL
On May 28, 2:42 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 14:43 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
mike3 writes:
So then Microsoft's agreement is not a good one.
That's up to the parties, isn't it? I certainly would not agree to it but
others are free to do as
On May 29, 6:24 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
So then Microsoft's agreement is not a good one.
I wrote:
That's up to the parties, isn't it? I certainly would not agree to it but
others are free to do as they please.
Rui Miguel Silva writes:
What is the freedom
On May 28, 2:38 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:00 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
...
The purpose of the GNU GPL is to be a tool to help drive Free Software's
objective: To Free All Users.
The GNU GPL BOTH *keeps* software Free Software AND *incites* the
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Contracts fall into contract law.
Copyright licenses fall into copyright law.
Repeating Moglen's idiocy doesn't make it less idiocy. Copyright law
establishes property rights. Licensing of that property fall into
contract law.
regards,
alexander.
mike3 writes:
So then Microsoft's agreement is not a good one.
I wrote:
That's up to the parties, isn't it? I certainly would not agree to it but
others are free to do as they please.
Rui Miguel Silva writes:
What is the freedom (wot?) of others to choose their slaver got to do
whit
Ter, 2007-05-29 às 10:15 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Contracts fall into contract law.
Copyright licenses fall into copyright law.
Repeating Moglen's idiocy doesn't make it less idiocy. Copyright law
establishes property rights. Licensing of
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
Then you eventually buy your copyright license by buying a legitimate
copy (a book, a CD, etc...).
In the US no license is needed to buy, own, or use a legitimate copy of a
book, CD, etc. Copyright law does not enter into the matter at all. It
is simply the
Ter, 2007-05-29 às 12:45 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
Then you eventually buy your copyright license by buying a legitimate
copy (a book, a CD, etc...).
In the US no license is needed to buy, own, or use a legitimate copy of a
book, CD, etc. Copyright law
I wrote:
In the US no license is needed to buy, own, or use a legitimate copy of a
book, CD, etc. Copyright law does not enter into the matter at all. It
is simply the purchase of a tangible object. A license is only needed if
you want to make copies beyond those permitted by law.
Rui
Ter, 2007-05-29 às 14:57 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
I wrote:
In the US no license is needed to buy, own, or use a legitimate copy of a
book, CD, etc. Copyright law does not enter into the matter at all. It
is simply the purchase of a tangible object. A license is only needed if
you
rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...]
Contracts fall into contract law. Copyright licenses fall into
copyright law.
Repeating Moglen's idiocy doesn't make it less idiocy. Copyright law
establishes property rights. Licensing of that property fall into
Dom, 2007-05-27 às 14:56 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
be described as a copyright license. In fact, most copyright licenses
--those between authors and publishers for example-- are contracts as well.
No, there are contracts where authors assign or even sell (in some
jurisdictions) their
On May 27, 1:56 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
But then when does [the Microsoft EULA] become a contract?
A copyright license is anything that grants some of the exclusive rights of
the copyright owner to someone else. Thus it is possible for a contract to
grant a
On May 28, 8:26 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
No, there are contracts where authors assign or even sell (in some
jurisdictions) their copyrights.
That's what I said.
I wrote:
For the Microsoft EULA to be a copyright license as well as a
On May 27, 12:53 pm, mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 27, 4:06 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 17:22 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 26, 5:30 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better yet... Those transcripts usually come
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:05 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
Any response?
Please respond, I'd really like to know if I've finally gotten this
understood.
I already said in another email that I think you're starting to get it.
However, the way you write is so convoluted that it is hard for me to
Dom, 2007-05-27 às 11:54 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 27, 4:09 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:44 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
No, the license is not a contract, it is a Copyright License.
He means the
mike3 writes:
So then Microsoft's agreement is not a good one.
That's up to the parties, isn't it? I certainly would not agree to it but
others are free to do as they please.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:00 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 27, 1:56 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
But then when does [the Microsoft EULA] become a contract?
But I thought the license was too restrictive. Is that just because it
does not
_grant_ as many rights as,
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:04 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
And therefore the GPL is more of a copyright license, whereas the MS-
EULA
is more of a contract -- since the MS-EULA _takes away_ rights one
would
otherwise have, whereas the GPL _grants_ rights one would otherwise
_not_ have.
Why... I argue
Seg, 2007-05-28 às 14:43 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
mike3 writes:
So then Microsoft's agreement is not a good one.
That's up to the parties, isn't it? I certainly would not agree to it but
others are free to do as they please.
What is the freedom (wot?) of others to choose their slaver
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 17:22 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 26, 5:30 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better yet... Those transcripts usually come from the recordings. Hear
them.
Is that so hard?
They are long and I can't seem to find a direct, straight to the point
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:44 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
No, the license is not a contract, it is a Copyright License.
He means the Microsoft EULA, and yes, it is a contract and not a copyright
license. In order to be a copyright license it would have to yield
It's not like this is not written explicitly in Stallman's essay
that I quoted to you. And it's not like I have not repeatedly
explained it. So how come you still are harping on this just to
keep the GPL program free nonsense? If that was the aim, the BSD
license would be quite
Fullquote for a reason:
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not like this is not written explicitly in Stallman's essay
that I quoted to you. And it's not like I have not repeatedly
explained it. So how come you still are harping on this just to
keep the GPL
On May 27, 4:06 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 17:22 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 26, 5:30 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better yet... Those transcripts usually come from the recordings. Hear
them.
Is that so hard?
On May 27, 4:09 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:44 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
No, the license is not a contract, it is a Copyright License.
He means the Microsoft EULA, and yes, it is a contract and not a
mike3 writes:
But then when does [the Microsoft EULA] become a contract?
A copyright license is anything that grants some of the exclusive rights of
the copyright owner to someone else. Thus it is possible for a contract to
grant a copyright license as part or all of the consideration and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Modifed BSD license doesn't keep software free, so you are simply
spreading misinformation. It was the exact point of the GPL to keep
something that was free, free. You will never be able to figure out
what
Hi.
I notice this post apparently fell on deaf ears, and I'd like to make
it more
visible as I'm wondering if I finally figured out the whole GNU
License thing:
---
Imaging for a second that you have a work, to which you add some
non-free code. A user can no longer change the work as a whole,
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, are any of these right? Did I finally get the drift? Were my
understandings finally corrrect at last?
No. The problem is that the GPLed program is licensed to you under
conditions. If you don't heed the conditions, you don't gain the
right to redistribute
On May 26, 1:32 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, are any of these right? Did I finally get the drift? Were my
understandings finally corrrect at last?
No. The problem is that the GPLed program is licensed to you under
conditions. If you don't
On May 26, 1:32 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Now most software licenses purport not at all to be licenses, namely
permissions for doing something. Instead they purport to be
contracts: that is why you have to click I agree and similar stuff.
In that case, a legal defense
mike3 wrote:
[...]
install the software, they would be free to ignore any restriction
that it imposes that is not imposed otherwise by copyright law,
since minors cannot enter into a legally binding contract?
Over here, yes. I had to consent to WOW license for my kid (they ask
the age).
Now most software licenses purport not at all to be licenses, namely
permissions for doing something. Instead they purport to be contracts:
that is why you have to click I agree and similar stuff. In that case,
a legal defense can actually be that you can't enter into a contract by
clicking
On May 26, 2:10 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now most software licenses purport not at all to be licenses, namely
permissions for doing something. Instead they purport to be contracts:
that is why you have to click I agree and similar stuff. In that case,
a legal defense can
mike3 wrote:
[...]
Now, is this right?
Nope. 17 USC 109 and 117 (in the EU it's the same). And IP licenses
are contracts.
-
While a party that owns copyright rights is ordinarily entitled to pursue
infringement claims against any third party who violates them, the courts
have
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 26, 1:32 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In short: the GPL tries to do as much as it can to promote [free]
software under the constraints that mass redistribution of
unmodified GPLed software should remain permitted without requiring
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 13:37 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
(...)
the GPL program, but of software in general. However it would
be unreasonable to include a demand that in exchange for using
a GPL program at all then one must make _all_ software they
are developing free (as then it becomes a contract),
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
No, the license is not a contract, it is a Copyright License.
He means the Microsoft EULA, and yes, it is a contract and not a copyright
license. In order to be a copyright license it would have to yield some of
the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. It
mike3 writes:
Since the license is actually a contract, then does that mean, that, say,
if a child under the age of 18 were to install the software, they would
be free to ignore any restriction that it imposes that is not imposed
otherwise by copyright law, since minors cannot enter into a
On May 26, 5:41 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 13:37 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
(...)
the GPL program, but of software in general. However it would
be unreasonable to include a demand that in exchange for using
a GPL program at all then one must make
On May 26, 5:30 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 12:53 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
On May 26, 1:32 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, are any of these right? Did I finally get the drift? Were my
66 matches
Mail list logo
