On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:39:24AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Be sure to distinguish the following:
* copyright in the original work (you apparently own that)
* copyright in the contributions (contributors own that)
* copyright in derivative works you create (you own that)
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:35:37PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
begin Kenny Tilton quotation:
What exactly does it do for FSF to lock up the GNU GPL that way?
My guess is that it gains some standard of identity for its licence.
That is, nobody can legally create Fred's GPL or Fred's Free
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:26:02PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
begin Justin Wells quotation:
[FSF:]
Its adversarity, say Microsoft Corp., has different ideas about how
the GPL v3 should be worded... for example, allowing Microsoft (and
only Microsoft) to incorporate all GPL'd software
On the GPL FAQ, there is a question:
If a programming language interpreter is released under the
GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it
must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
You can see the answer at:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 11:16:43AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
As is well known, I think the otherwise using part of clause 8
is mere flatus vocis: using software you lawfully own can't impose
any contract requirement on you.
Can obtaining that copy impose restrictions on use, though?
In other
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:59:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
contract of adhesion (one-sided) as a Microsoft EULA.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 06:45:54PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
David Johnson scripsit:
A menu at a
Sorry about that. I accidently sent the message while it was incomplete...
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 06:04:47PM -0800, Chris D. Sloan wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:59:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
contract
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 02:11:41PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:58:54AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Currently OSD #1 reads:
The license shall not restrict any party from selling
or
For the concrete example of Microsoft using parts of Linux, they would
legally have to release the source of Windows under the GPL. This
will *never* happen while pigs remain land bound animals, but if it
did, I'm sure that the Free Software Foundation (and anyone who
believes in the philosophy
As I understand it, John was not saying that the person who buys a CD
with a copy of Linux (or whatever) now owns a copyright or anything
like that, but that they own the copy of the data itself.
Similarly, I own many books. Some of them I bought, some were given
to me, it doesn't really matter
10 matches
Mail list logo
