On Mar 24, 9:20 am, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Your language here kind of implies that A's data aren't actually part of
> application A, they're separate from it. So, what have we got here?
> You're generating data with Product A which are stored in a database
> format. You want to access them from
Product A is licensed by the GPL. Product A uses MySQL.
Product B is a seperate application. Product B is not a module for
product A. Product B's code is not embedded in product A.
But, product B can access product A's data by reading the same MySQL
database as product A.
Here is the rub: for pr
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
Copyright law as written by Congress is designed to
establish the right to exclude. *ONLY* Congress can create
those "in rem" rights to exclude. See 17 USC section
301(a).
Copy
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
mere aggregation
While you would like to characterize the question as being
one of mere aggregation (because you would like the GPL to
not affect a combined work), that is incorrect, not least
because the OP is not doing any aggregation with GPLed c
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
>>> Copyright law as written by Congress is designed to establish
>>> the right to exclude. *ONLY* Congress can create those "in rem"
>>> rights to exclude. See 17 USC section 301(a).
>>> Copyright li
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
mere aggregation
While you would like to characterize the question as being
one of mere aggregation (because you would like the GPL to
not affect a combined work), that is incorrect, not least
because the OP is not doing any aggregation with GPLed code
at all.
The OP
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:35:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>
>> > Rjack doesn't accept the rationalization of piracy due the thief's
>> > state of mind or motive. The difference between commercial and
>> > non-comme
Rjack wrote:
Here's what the Federal Judge thinks of ... Charles Nesson...:
...Nesson has also managed to infuriate the federal judge
overseeing the case...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/p2p-judge-blasts-frivolous-motions-from-harvard-prof.ars
Because of how he's been behaving
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
Copyright law as written by Congress is designed to establish
the right to exclude. *ONLY* Congress can create those "in rem"
rights to exclude. See 17 USC section 301(a).
Copyright licenses are designed to waive particular rights to
ex
walterbyrd wrote:
[...]
> Would my application have to licensed under the GPL?
"In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
und
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Mr. Nesson has argued that the penalties Mr. Tenenbaum faces, if
he loses the case, are grossly disproportionate: up to $150,000
for each of the seven songs he is accused of illegally
downloading. T
walterbyrd wrote:
Suppose I create a seperate application which can read, or write, to
the databases used by those applications. Suppose I find the structure
of the databases by using PHPMyAdmin, or PgAdmin, or whatever.
Would my application have to licensed under the GPL?
No. Look, it's a sim
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
> Copyright law as written by Congress is designed to establish the
> right to exclude. *ONLY* Congress can create those "in rem" rights
> to exclude. See 17 USC section 301(a).
> Copyright licenses are designed to waive particular rights to
> exclude so that lic
Thufir Hawat wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
> > Rjack doesn't accept the rationalization of piracy due the thief's state
> > of mind or motive. The difference between commercial and non-commercial
> > piracy is comparable to the difference between being pregnant an
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:46:14 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
>> Your Robin Hood analogy doesn't fly. The FSF promotes an illegal
>> copyright license in an attempt to steal the exclusive copyrights of
>> programmers.
>
> The GPL is completely legal, and there is no theft because acceptan
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote:
> Rjack doesn't accept the rationalization of piracy due the thief's state
> of mind or motive. The difference between commercial and non-commercial
> piracy is comparable to the difference between being pregnant and a
> "little bit" pregnant.
Wh
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>> The FSF doesn't go around helping Cisco pay less for copyright
>> infringement, but they might help Grandma vs. RIAA.
>
> Your Robin Hood analogy doesn't fly. The FSF promotes an illegal
> copyright license in an attempt to steal the exclusive c
Rjack wrote:
Your Robin Hood analogy doesn't fly. The FSF promotes an illegal
copyright license in an attempt to steal the exclusive copyrights of
programmers.
The GPL is completely legal, and there is no theft because acceptance
of the GPL is completely voluntary. The theft occurs when code g
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:59:03 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
[ Update: Ray Beckerman sends a correction. He says the reasoning of
the four cases and two law review articles and the brief is equally
applicable to commercial copyright infringement defendants.]"
http://www.groklaw.net/a
walterbyrd wrote:
[...]
> Since product B used the GPL'd database schema of product A; must
> product B also be licensed under the GPL?
To be on the 100% safe side, you should create a separate module
translating "database schema of product A" to a randomized schema of the
same items/facts used i
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:59:03 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> [ Update: Ray Beckerman sends a correction. He says the reasoning of
>>> the four cases and two law review articles and the brief is equally
>>> applicable to commercial copyright infringement defendants.]"
>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.
walterbyrd wrote:
> Product A is licensed by the GPL. Product A uses MySQL.
> Product B is a seperate application. Product B is not a module for
> product A. Product B's code is not embedded in product A.
> But, product B can access product A's data by reading the same MySQL
> database as produc
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
[ostensibly quoting Eric Raymond]:
> "The question I found myself asking is: if the market punished
> people for taking opensource closed, then why do our licenses need
> to punish people for taking open sourceclosed? That is why I don't
> think you really need GP
On 2009-03-23, Thufir Hawat wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:26:59 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
In the current suit Free Software Foundation Inc. v. Cisco Systems
Inc. the FSF is asking for monetary damages:
>>>
>>> which is commercial, so the comparison fails there.
>>
>> Read the Grokfud lin
Rjack wrote:
"The question I found myself asking is: if the market punished
people for taking open source closed, then why do our licenses need
to punish people for taking open source closed?
The speaker is being disingenuous. Whatever effects the market has,
they are long-term and imprecise. F
Rjack wrote:
>
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <731831868.575...@irys.nyx.net>,
> > anonb...@nyx3.nyx.net (Name withheld by request) wrote:
> >
> >> How might one ethically/legally re-write a suite of scripts one wrote
> >> for a former employer, so that the new code may be shared under G
"The question I found myself asking is: if the market punished
people for taking opensource closed, then why do our licenses need
to punish people for taking open sourceclosed? That is why I don't
think you really need GPL or a reciprocal licenses anymore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEPg2M1qb
Barry Margolin wrote:
In article <731831868.575...@irys.nyx.net>,
anonb...@nyx3.nyx.net (Name withheld by request) wrote:
How might one ethically/legally re-write a suite of scripts one wrote
for a former employer, so that the new code may be shared under GPL?
IANAL, but I think this is like
RonB wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:22:11 -0500, Rjack
wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
Do you suggest that they just went into the tank because
they didn't feel like winning?
Maybe they just suck, or maybe they decided that they
wouldn't win. Beats me.
Maybe the goalposts w
29 matches
Mail list logo
