Rjack writes:
>> But you haven't given a good reason why the FSF, when drafting a
>> license to be used globally, should make it US-specific.
>You have won Rahul!!!
>You have totally stumped me. I can't give a good reason for a global
>FSF license -- the idea of a globally enforceable copyrigh
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "Andrew Halliwell" wrote in message
> news:gkt066-8q6@ponder.sky.com...
>
>> If they don't agree with the GPL and refuse to accept its terms they
>> have no right to distribute, and as they're not distributing the
>> source that means they are in violation from the
amicus_curious wrote:
"Rjack" wrote in message
news:o72dnc9jvzlosrdunz2dnuvz_szin...@giganews.com...
What are the legal differences in a) downloading directly to
a DVD and/or b) downloading to the hard drive and then
copying to a DVD. Please quote all relevant legislation in
any jurisdiction
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack writes:
I live in a U.S. jurisdiction... I will continue to legally
interpret the GPL under US copyright law...
You provided a good explanation of why, if you were writing a
license, you might use US-specific language.
But you haven't given a good reason why the FSF
Rjack writes:
>I live in a U.S. jurisdiction...
>I will continue to legally interpret the GPL under US copyright law...
You provided a good explanation of why, if you were writing a license,
you might use US-specific language.
But you haven't given a good reason why the FSF, when drafting a lic
"Andrew Halliwell" wrote in message
news:gkt066-8q6@ponder.sky.com...
Hyman Rosen wrote:
ZnU wrote:
I form two corporations...
This works fine, as long as the copyright holders can't
prove that the two companies are just a sham created to
violate their rights. If they're really separa
"Rjack" wrote in message
news:o72dnc9jvzlosrdunz2dnuvz_szin...@giganews.com...
What are the legal differences in a) downloading directly to a DVD and/or
b) downloading to the hard drive and then copying to a
DVD. Please quote all relevant legislation in any jurisdiction..
Your question i
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack writes:
Since we are discussing software that will be propagated
worldwide, it makes no sense to make its license specific to any
one country.
OK, Rahul -- you win -- write your license in Esperanto.
Clever reductio ad absurdum argument. Funny too.
But it's based
Hyman Rosen wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>> I form two corporations...
>
> This works fine, as long as the copyright holders can't
> prove that the two companies are just a sham created to
> violate their rights. If they're really separate, it's OK.
Not for the second company it isn't.
They're violating
Rjack writes:
>> Since we are discussing software that will be propagated
>> worldwide, it makes no sense to make its license specific to any
>> one country.
>OK, Rahul -- you win -- write your license in Esperanto.
Clever reductio ad absurdum argument. Funny too.
But it's based on two flawed
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack writes:
But this doesn't explain why you seem to think that the
license should use US-specific language.
One tactic of trolling is to endlessly ask "why" questions
especially concerning other's motivations. Perhaps you should
simply state your reasons "why" I shoul
Doug Mentohl wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
.. The issue at bar is the harm to the copyright holder and if
he is willing to accept the result of one mechanism, i.e. the
redistribution of the downloaded and authorized copy, there
can be no harm found to be associated with some other mechanism
Rjack writes:
>> But this doesn't explain why you seem to think that the license
>> should use US-specific language.
>One tactic of trolling is to endlessly ask "why" questions
>especially concerning other's motivations. Perhaps you should simply
>state your reasons "why" I shouldn't prefer US
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack writes:
Some might think it wise to use terms not specific to US law for
software that will get worldwide propagation. Please explain
why you seem to disagree.
Attempting to use a license for worldwide "propagation" (presumably
for one vast World Socialist Order)
amicus_curious wrote:
.. The issue at bar is the harm to the copyright holder and if he is willing to
accept the result of one mechanism, i.e. the redistribution of the downloaded
and authorized copy, there can be no harm found to be associated with some
other mechanism that results in exac
Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> The only other components in the executable will be "boilerplate"
> No. Those components may include entire implementations of things
> like formatting floating point numbers into strings, trigonometric
> functions, calendar functions, and so forth.
John Hasler wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>> You're saying, I think, that this "boilerplate" code gives the
>> boilerplate's writer some degree of copyright in the executable program.
>> I'm not at all convinced o this. Certainly, the world doesn't seem to
>> work this way in practice, in that
Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
>> The an original creative arrangement of materials in a compilation
>> makes it eligible for copyright.
> "Compilation" meaning the output produced by the computerized
> programming language translator known as a "compiler". Which
> should have been obvious fro
18 matches
Mail list logo
