Ineiev wrote:
On 10/11/2012 12:00 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Ineiev wrote:
Could you be more specific? what requirements are not fulfilled
Signed written form to begin with.
Article 1286 (3) maintains that this is not a requirement for licensing
computer programs.
1286 (3) is
On 10/11/2012 02:58 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Ineiev wrote:
On 10/10/2012 10:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If so be advised that the GPL doesn't fulfil Russian requirements for IP
licenses in general...
Why?
Read the entire chapter 69 (Part 4***) of Russian Civil Code.
Read
Ineiev wrote:
On 10/11/2012 02:58 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Ineiev wrote:
On 10/10/2012 10:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If so be advised that the GPL doesn't fulfil Russian requirements for IP
licenses in general...
Why?
Read the entire chapter 69 (Part 4***) of Russian
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
[...]
For the upteenth time: the act of copying is perfectly fine and
unrestricted under the GPL and other public licenses.
... As long as the other party (i. e., the recipient) accepts
the license in full, and remains in full
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
More accurately, when were those copies you've just made first placed on
the European market with the consent of the copyright holder? They
haven't been, you've only just made them. Why then do you believe that
they benefit from any exhaustion of the distribution
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:19:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Providing access to copyrighted work with permission to make copies
directly by recipients instead of 'trading' material objects with
copyrighted work fixed on/in them doesn't change the status of copies
lawfully made
What it
Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:19:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Providing access to copyrighted work with permission to make copies
directly by recipients instead of 'trading' material objects with
copyrighted work fixed on/in them doesn't change the status of copies
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:38:39 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
And if you seriously believe that EU version of 'first sale' is somehow
very very different from US version then go to doctor.
It now appears that not only have you not understood the differences
between the EU exhaustion of
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:50:12 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Unrestricted permission to reproduce (make copies) was placed on the
European market with the consent of the copyright holder which is the
same as if copyright holder would made and placed on the European
market all those copies
Tim Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:36:36 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
The distribution right comes by statute as addition to the granted
reproduction right / right to prepare derivative works.
I'm not sure if this is a source of confusion here, but please remember
that
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:05:35 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Exclusive distribution right is severely limited by 'first sale' /
exhaustion meaning that exclusivity allows to forbid distribution of
copies made unlawfully (pirated copies). Distribution of lawfully made
copies by owners of
Tim Jackson wrote:
[... sale ...]
Do you seriously believe that gifted copies don't fall under 'first
sale'?
Do you seriously believe that copies made with permission e.g. 'you may
make as many copies verbatim as you like and even create derivatives and
make as many copies of those as you like
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
Before you can distribute copies, you have to make them. That is only
permitted either:
(a) in accordance with the conditions of the copyleft licence...
And what are the 'conditions' for MAKING copies under copyleft?
Again: recall that subsequent act of eventual
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:02:55 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Tim Jackson wrote:
[... sale ...]
Do you seriously believe that gifted copies don't fall under 'first
sale'?
Do you seriously believe that copies made with permission e.g. 'you may
make as many copies verbatim as you
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:13:10 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
Before you can distribute copies, you have to make them. That is only
permitted either:
(a) in accordance with the conditions of the copyleft licence...
And what are the 'conditions' for
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
So yes, certainly the copyright holder can say you can make as many
copies as you like. But he can also make that subject to conditions -
as a copyleft licence does.
Hey, I've downloaded GCC binary package and made several copies of it...
what are the GPL
Tim Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:13:10 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
Before you can distribute copies, you have to make them. That is only
permitted either:
(a) in accordance with the conditions of the copyleft licence...
And what
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:51:54 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
So yes, certainly the copyright holder can say you can make as many
copies as you like. But he can also make that subject to conditions -
as a copyleft licence does.
Hey, I've downloaded GCC
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:07:56 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Tim Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:51:54 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Hey, I've downloaded GCC binary package and made several copies of it...
what are the GPL 'conditions' that I should have fulfilled
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
Again, I've emphasised that copy. There's no exhaustion of the right
to control the making and distribution of **further** copies.
Don't blend separate statutory rights together - I mean reproduction
(making) and distribution.
Exclusive distribution right gives
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
In the context of copyleft and and other public licenses pirated
copies simply don't exist
Why not? A binary made of copylefted source would be an illegal
one, unless accompanied by the exact version of
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:00:53 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
Again, I've emphasised that copy. There's no exhaustion of the right
to control the making and distribution of **further** copies.
Don't blend separate statutory rights together - I mean
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:19:33 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote...
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:00:53 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
Again, I've emphasised that copy. There's no exhaustion of the right
to control the making and distribution of **further** copies.
Tim Jackson wrote:
[... the copy concerned being placed on the European market ...]
Exhaustion of the distribution right covers all lawfully made copies
owned by strangers regarding copyright in a work fixated in a copy. A
copy does not necessarily have to be transferred to the owner on a
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:36:36 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Tim Jackson wrote:
[... the copy concerned being placed on the European market ...]
Exhaustion of the distribution right covers all lawfully made copies
owned by strangers regarding copyright in a work fixated in a copy.
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:36:36 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
The distribution right comes by statute as addition to the granted
reproduction right / right to prepare derivative works.
I'm not sure if this is a source of confusion here, but please remember
that the reproduction right and
Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
How much bearing do you think 17 U.S.C. has on European law?
17 U.S.C. is currently known in European law as Article 5
Exceptions to the restricted acts of DIRECTIVE 2009/24/EC:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:111:0016:0022:EN:PDF
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[... 17 U.S.C. 109 and 17 U.S.C. 117 ...]
How much bearing do you think 17 U.S.C. has on European law?
17 U.S.C. is currently known in European law as Article 5
^
|
117 ---+
Exceptions to the restricted acts of DIRECTIVE 2009/24/EC:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:19:12 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[... 17 U.S.C. 109 and 17 U.S.C. 117 ...]
How much bearing do you think 17 U.S.C. has on European law?
17 U.S.C. is currently known in European law as Article 5
^
|
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article 5065832f.12351...@web.de,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Thus copies made under copyleft (and other public licenses) fall under
exhaustion doctrine preventing copyright owners (licensors) using tort
theory (copyright infringement claims)
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:34:49 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
You seem to not grok a rather simple concept: lawful ownership
of a copy incorporating work verbatim or even a copy incorporating
derivative work gives the owner of that copy all the rights to
distribute **that copy** without
Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
[Dropping news:comp.os.linux.advocacy, for nntp://aioe.org/ is
unlikely to allow it.]
Official death of copyleft in EU:
http://www.gamerlaw.co.uk/2012/07/legality-of-second-hand-sales-in-eu.html
In article 5065832f.12351...@web.de,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Thus copies made under copyleft (and other public licenses) fall under
exhaustion doctrine preventing copyright owners (licensors) using tort
theory (copyright infringement claims) regarding control of terms and
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:59:59 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Thus copies made under copyleft (and other public licenses) fall under
exhaustion doctrine preventing copyright owners (licensors) using tort
theory (copyright infringement claims) regarding control of terms and
conditions for
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
[Dropping news:comp.os.linux.advocacy, for nntp://aioe.org/ is
unlikely to allow it.]
Official death of copyleft in EU:
http://www.gamerlaw.co.uk/2012/07/legality-of-second-hand-sales-in-eu.html
Well, thanks for an early
Official death of copyleft in EU:
http://www.gamerlaw.co.uk/2012/07/legality-of-second-hand-sales-in-eu.html
...
The case related to a dispute between software companies Oracle and
UsedSoft over whether UsedSoft could sell businesses and consumers used
licences for Oracle software without
36 matches
Mail list logo
