Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> intend to. I'm only refuting the assertion that if no lines of program
> code are modified, it necessarily follows that there is no derivative
> work.
It's not a derivative work if it's a (non-derivative) compilation. You
just can't have it both ways (derivative comp
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> Where I think he's completely out to lunch is in his interpretation of
> first sale.
Once again: I'm in good company.
http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
:What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own their own
:copies, including binary copies, of the software,
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 18 Aug 2005 15:17:12 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The U.S. Copyright office agrees with me:
> > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#examples
> >
> > "Sound recording (long-playing record in which two of the
> > 10 selections
On 18 Aug 2005 15:17:12 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 16 Aug 2005 14:22:25 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Meaning that the original source or object code has not been mutated.
>> > In the sense I'm using "modifie
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 16 Aug 2005 14:22:25 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Meaning that the original source or object code has not been mutated.
> > In the sense I'm using "modified", a naked statue remains unmodified
> > when clothing is draped over it. An
On 16 Aug 2005 14:22:25 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I think suggesting that an unmodified work has been recast or transformed in
>> form is a pretty big stretch. Adapted comes the closest, but in my opinion
>> adapting requires making at
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think suggesting that an unmodified work has been recast or transformed in
> form is a pretty big stretch. Adapted comes the closest, but in my opinion
> adapting requires making at least some change to fit. Yet you've expressly
> stated that the original so
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> I think you might get away with literally doing that without infringing the
> copyright[1] with actual pieces of paper. However, their is no equivalent
> for machine-readable media (except perhaps paper tape or punched
> cards). It's also so impractical as to be moot.
David Kastrup writes:
> And if you think you can circumvent the reprinting permission by taking
> hold of a few cubic feet of actual copies, then cutting and pasting from
> them by a mechanical process, I very much doubt that the nominal
> possession of the physical copies will save you from having
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> SmartDownload could be analogized to a free neighborhood newspaper,
> readily obtained from a sidewalk box or supermarket counter without
> any exchange with a seller or vender. It is there for the taking.
I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak continues to exhibit st
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [...]
>> Gifts
>
> I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak (still***) seems to be unaware that
> "attached conditions" for downloads (I mean electronic distribution)
> become binding only via affirmative action on part of rec
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> Gifts
I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak (still***) seems to be unaware that
"attached conditions" for downloads (I mean electronic distribution)
become binding only via affirmative action on part of recipient.
Territorial hints aside for a moment, he might (fi
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [...]
>> GNUtian dak is (mostly) right
>
> Gifts (in the context of this thread: accepted unilateral copyright
> grants) also fall under '"first sale".
Sure, as long as you have proof that you were made a present of a c
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> GNUtian dak is (mostly) right
Gifts (in the context of this thread: accepted unilateral copyright
grants) also fall under '"first sale". Price is irrelevant. Territorial
hint: see the so called Linux-Klausel in the most recent UrhG, my dear
(plonked) GNUtian d
John Hasler wrote: ...
You're (almost totally) wrong, and (plonked) GNUtian dak is (mostly)
right. "The right to access the copyrighted content must not be
confused with the incidental possession of the object that facilitates
practical exercise of the right. It is access to the copyrighted
m
I wrote:
> In that case you do own the physical copies
David Kastrup writes:
> Wrong. You own the media, not the content.
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 101:
Copies are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is
fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which t
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>> In the US that is not a grant of the GPL. Copyright law explicitly
>> gives you the right to run any program you own a copy of.
>
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Where "own" means "lawfully acquired in an exchange of consideration from
>> somebody w
I wrote:
> In the US that is not a grant of the GPL. Copyright law explicitly
> gives you the right to run any program you own a copy of.
David Kastrup writes:
> Where "own" means "lawfully acquired in an exchange of consideration from
> somebody with the right to offer the software".
I think you
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 19:02 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > I've stated it well before you: the GNU GPL is an unilateral grant of
> > certain rights.
> >
> > One of them is, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, to DISTRIBUTE COPIES,
>
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rui writes:
>> ANOTHER is RUNNING FOR ANY PURPOSE. And this one HAS NO CONDITIONS.
>
> In the US that is not a grant of the GPL. Copyright law explicitly
> gives you the right to run any program you own a copy of.
Where "own" means "lawfully acquired in a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak
I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak doesn't believe that I've plonked
him (he joined GNUtian ams). Hint: I working in team. And, BTW, all
my plonks expire on annual basis. So don't be surprised to be re-
plonked at some time in t
Rui writes:
> ANOTHER is RUNNING FOR ANY PURPOSE. And this one HAS NO CONDITIONS.
In the US that is not a grant of the GPL. Copyright law explicitly gives
you the right to run any program you own a copy of.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
_
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak
Your lies about your plonking are as transparent as your lies about
the GPL.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> I've stated it well before you: the GNU GPL is an unilateral grant of
> certain rights.
>
> One of them is, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, to DISTRIBUTE COPIES,
^
17 USC 109, stupid.
> MODIFIED OR NOT.
S
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> Promises regarding distribution are totally baside the point. We
> are talking about *unilateral* grant, not a contract:
>
> http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html
>
>
>
> The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral
> permission, in w
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 17:49 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Promises regarding distribution are totally baside the point. We
> are talking about *unilateral* grant, not a contract:
You're a joke. Now you try to drag everyone who reads you into a
circular argument.
I've stated it well before y
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
>> > Copies are lawfully made pursuant to the GPL's unilateral grant
>> > to reproduce.
>> ... under certain conditions.
>>
>> > "in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms."
>> >
>> > No. You must show
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > Copies are lawfully made pursuant to the GPL's unilateral grant
> > to reproduce.
> ... under certain conditions.
>
> > "in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms."
> >
> > No. You must show that copies are not lawfully made.
>
> If they don't fol
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 16:46 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> If you mean the omission of the rest of Moglens gospel... well,
>
> "The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission,"
>
> Objection. I have permission (unilateral grant) to reproduce.
... under certain conditions.
> "i
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Well, regarding the GPL, GNUtian Moglen says that there aren't any
> > promises at all to be enforced.
> >
> > http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> And here you both:
> misquote
How so?
htt
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Well, regarding the GPL, GNUtian Moglen says that there aren't any
> promises at all to be enforced.
>
> http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And here you both:
misquote
quote thyself
> And I *really like* it.
Like a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > < > this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without
> > the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of
> > the possession of that copy or phonorecord.>>
> > ^
Rui Miguel Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> that I've lawfully made: I can distribute them as I see fit (apart
>> from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. There's
>> no copyright infringement and there's no contr
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> that I've lawfully made: I can distribute them as I see fit (apart
> from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. There's no
> copyright infringement and there's no contract violation ("no contract"
> says FSF). That's
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
>> <> this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without
>> the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of
>> the possession of that copy or phonorecord.>>
>>
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> < this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without
> the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of
> the possession of that copy or phonorecord.>>
> ^
>
> So you can do whatever with _YOUR
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 13:27 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > > Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his "Will
> > > the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?"
> >
> > Stop distorting intentionally everything people write.
>
> Well, did you al
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his "Will
> > the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?"
>
> Stop distorting intentionally everything people write.
Well, did you already read that Edwards article? What exactly did I
distort? Start on quoti
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 10:31 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > There's no contract from the beginning.
>
> Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his "Will
> the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?"
Stop distorting intentionally everything
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://www.ifross.de and/or http://www.jbb.de) why the GPL is a
http://oss.fh-coburg.de/events/OSSIE04/schulz_contractional_relationships.pdf
(Contractual Relationships in Open Source Structures, Carsten Schulz, JBB
Rechtsanwälte, [EMAIL PROTECTED])
regards,
al
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> There's no contract from the beginning.
Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his "Will
the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?"
This document represents the author's best effort to identify the
principles of common law, Federal statutes,
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 00:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > The FSF is not talking about giving (or selling or whatever) your copy
> > (read first sale), but copy distribution.
>
> Under FSF's "GPL-is-not-a-contract" theory
How is it not a theory? You don't have to click any "I Agree" on GNU
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:25 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > [...]
> > > consequence, the GPL'd stuff should be exempt from "first sale"...
> > > other bizarre legal constructions of his own (together with his
> > > friend Metzger) cr
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:25 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [...]
> > consequence, the GPL'd stuff should be exempt from "first sale"...
> > other bizarre legal constructions of his own (together with his
> > friend Metzger) creation aside for a moment.
>
> Well, loo
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> consequence, the GPL'd stuff should be exempt from "first sale"...
> other bizarre legal constructions of his own (together with his
> friend Metzger) creation aside for a moment.
Well, looks like that in the meantime, the fellows have realized
that exemption fr
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> (http://www.ifross.de) which advocates that contractual "condition
Oh my, this is fun ("the GPL 2b is not for kids", so to speak):
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art7.html
("Frei ab 18 Jahre")
Well, I agree. :-)
regards,
alexander.
__
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> > Isaac wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html>
> > > >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html>
> >
> > I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the Distr
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>
>> Isaac wrote:
>> [...]
>> > >http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html>
>> > >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html>
>>
>> I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaw
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
> > >http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html>
> > >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html>
>
> I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court
> of Munich I judged that the GPL
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isaac wrote:
> [...]
>> >http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html>
>> >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html>
>
> I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court
> of Munich I jud
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> >http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html>
> >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html>
I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court
of Munich I judged that the GPL is a contract governed by the Sect. 158
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [...]
>> http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html
>
> I like this:
>
>
>
> Some of Welte's targets have complied voluntarily, but one suspects
> that is because they were simply unaware of the problem. Welte
> appare
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html
I like this:
Some of Welte's targets have complied voluntarily, but one suspects that
is because they were simply unaware of the problem. Welte apparently has
no authority to enforce these copyrights. These action
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> >http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html>
> >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html>
> >
>
> These cases really do not appear to be on point
These cases are not really "cases" to begin with (that's apart from fact
that orders wer
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:13:36 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:57:00 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> GPL'ed
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:57:00 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Bruce Lewis wrote:
>>> [...]
GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very
likely to make it
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:57:00 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Bruce Lewis wrote:
>> [...]
>>> GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very
>>> likely to make it a derivative work.
>>
>> "Various claims ma
On 05 Aug 2005 09:04:01 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Yeah, I should have said that copyright doesn't establish exclusive
>> right to "designed to fit". Ok now?
>
> Just from your words: "To fit" is one definition of "adapt".
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
> "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies
> with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and
> do not form part of the agreement accepted by a licensee when
> exercising the license granted in the GPL. Therefore,
>
Bruce Lewis wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You must be reading something that isn't there. The "independent"
> > status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s)
> > in the sense that it "does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
> > own
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Lewis wrote:
> [...]
> > "Rarely" implies it is possible.
>
> That mild and polite wording doesn't subvert the clear message.
It subverts yours.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discus
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You must be reading something that isn't there. The "independent"
> status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s)
> in the sense that it "does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
> ownership, or subsistence of, any co
Bruce Lewis wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It applies the entire inseparable derivative work. Stop confusing
> > derivative works with non-derivative compilations where each
> > constituent work can be under its own license.
>
> You'll have to lobby congress to
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It applies the entire inseparable derivative work. Stop confusing
> derivative works with non-derivative compilations where each
> constituent work can be under its own license.
You'll have to lobby congress to change "compilation or derivative wor
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> Now you are citing someone who says "Such innovations rarely will
> constitute infringing derivative works under the Copyright Act."
Someone == United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
>
> "Rarely" implies it is possible.
That mild and polite wording doesn't
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Lewis wrote:
> [...]
> > Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software
> > could be described by any of the three verbs in "or any other form in
> > which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."
>
> Copyright
Bruce Lewis wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives
> > like human translations from one programming language to the other
> > with the same set of protected elements in both original work and
> > deriva
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Lewis wrote:
> [...]
> > brush strokes are all mine, but it may be considered a part of the work
> > in which the Mona Lisa was used, if it is dependent on lining up with
> > the Mona Lisa for its value.
>
> http://groups.google.de/group/comp
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives
> like human translations from one programming language to the other
> with the same set of protected elements in both original work and
> derivative work (which falls under "mo
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Lewis wrote:
> [...]
>> GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very
>> likely to make it a derivative work.
>
> "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies
> with copyright infringement, are
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> brush strokes are all mine, but it may be considered a part of the work
> in which the Mona Lisa was used, if it is dependent on lining up with
> the Mona Lisa for its value.
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.programming.threads/msg/8c98fb4bd0d6a15e
("The Game Genie is
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very
> likely to make it a derivative work.
"Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies
with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and
do not form part of
Bruce Lewis wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Bruce Lewis wrote:
> >
> > [... BSD ...]
> >
> > > A different license is allowed for the derivative.
> >
> > The BSD states that you should retain the BSD license in source code of
> > derivatives: different license is
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software
> could be described by any of the three verbs in "or any other form in
> which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."
Copyright protects software as literary works. Things like "builds on"
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, I should have said that copyright doesn't establish exclusive
> right to "designed to fit". Ok now?
Just from your words: "To fit" is one definition of "adapt". Adaptation
is one form of derivative work. Derivative work is an exclusive righ
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Lewis wrote:
>
> [... BSD ...]
>
> > A different license is allowed for the derivative.
>
> The BSD states that you should retain the BSD license in source code of
> derivatives: different license is not allowed.
The boy scouts state th
Isaac wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:50:58 +0200, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Lewis wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Suppose I created a painting designed to fit under the Mona Lisa and
> >
> > Copyright protects software as literary works, not paintings.
>
> Why does
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:50:58 +0200, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Bruce Lewis wrote:
> [...]
>> Suppose I created a painting designed to fit under the Mona Lisa and
>
> Copyright protects software as literary works, not paintings.
Why does this matter?
>
> regards,
> alexa
On 04 Aug 2005 09:43:26 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 03 Aug 2005 13:44:55 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary wo
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> can enforce the copyright in the portion of the derivative
> that is exclusively his work.
A derivative is never "exclusively his work" (his derivatives aside
for a moment). And a compilation is always "exclusively his work".
regards,
alexander.
___
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> Suppose I created a painting designed to fit under the Mona Lisa and
Copyright protects software as literary works, not paintings.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gn
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[... BSD ...]
> A different license is allowed for the derivative.
The BSD states that you should retain the BSD license in source code of
derivatives: different license is not allowed.
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss ma
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Lewis writes:
> > If he does not license it under the same terms, then he has no copyright
> > protection; the only copyright in force is for the original GPLed code.
>
> This is not true. He is infringing the copyright on the original code by
> di
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve wrote:
> >
> > You've lost me on this point as well. Are you trying to say that
> > incorporation of another project's code into your own project does not
> > constitute a "derived work" so long as you don't modify the code you've
>
Bruce Lewis writes:
> If he does not license it under the same terms, then he has no copyright
> protection; the only copyright in force is for the original GPLed code.
This is not true. He is infringing the copyright on the original code by
distributing the derivative under terms other than thos
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 03 Aug 2005 13:44:55 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC
> >> test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD.
> >
>
Your posts are obscuring the key difference between the BSD license
and the GPL. Is this on purpose?
Sad to say, yes it is. Alexander Terekhov likes to spread lies (sadly,
this is the only thing it can be called) about the GNU GPL, the BSD
license, copyright law, and other things on this ma
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the modified source code
> must retain the BSD license: different license is not allowed.
[True statement]: [false statement]
A different license is allowed for the derivative. The copyright on the
original is still in force, and to comply with
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The license states that "redistributions... with modification" (ie.
> derived works) have to embed the BSD license terms SOMEWHERE in their
> materials.
Yes.
> Doesn't this mean that derived works are therefore covered
> by the BSD license (in addition
On 03 Aug 2005 13:44:55 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC
>> test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD.
>
> That's really interesting. What legal jurisdi
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103
http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/50a5eb95d9c8a423
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> Since the BSD license allows code to be used for any purpose, the
> purpose of creating a derivative work and distributing it under a
> different license is allowed.
Use is irrelevant because as far as copyright is concerned, it is
permitted per 17 USC 117 and the
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC
> test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD.
That's really interesting. What legal jurisdiction are you in?
U.S. law is different. Here, derivative works have separate c
Steve wrote:
>
> > Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC
> > test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. In source code form, such
> > derivative works are subject to BSD and only the BSD -- you simply can't
> > modify/extend/etc. original license (unless you
Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC
test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. In source code form, such
derivative works are subject to BSD and only the BSD -- you simply can't
modify/extend/etc. original license (unless you're the copyright owner
in or
Steve wrote:
[...]
> materials. Doesn't this mean that derived works are therefore covered
> by the BSD license (in addition to any other proprietary or open
> licensing terms the derived work author himself applies)?
Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC
test]
The BSD license does not cover the modifications, it merely allows for
the modifications.
Can you please elaborate further? This statement seems to directly
contradict your previous one, acknowledging that works deriving from
BSD-licensed code must include the ancestral owner(s)'s copyright
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does this not mean that an incrementally-growing list of contributors
> must be acknowledged through retention of their copyright notices in
> derived works?
As long as the copyright notice and contributor list only has to be
maintained in the source co
I've been doing some reading about the BSD license, and GPL-proponents'
criticisms of the old "advertising clause" as it existed prior to 1999.
A chief problem that GNU had with it was that the requirement to
acknowledge original copyright owners in derived works leads to bloated
and unwieldy
99 matches
Mail list logo
