Michael Beck wrote:
Some people believe that when you subclass a new class,
you are creating a derivative work in the copyright sense,
especially when you override existing methods.
The scary scenario is that somebody will inherit a
class, make some modifications to it, and then claim
Steve Lhomme wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Greg London [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Steve Lhomme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: binary restrictions?
| Steve Lhomme wrote:
| | A binary is a derived work.
|
| Are you
for my situation.
If they want to go off on some rant of
righteousness, I don't have to waste my
time to listen.
I just have to remind myself in the midst of the emails...
;)
Greg London
The Anti-Terrorism Act goes too far:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21854.html
Stop the madness before
Everyone breath for a second.
My understanding of David's original post was
to assert that open and free were meaningless
distinctions. because of Adam Smith's
notion of Invisible Hand, it didn't matter
where you start, you end up at effectively
the same end point. Therfore there is no
need
Rick Moen wrote:
begin Greg London quotation:
Look, nobody's going to force-feed common sense
to people who don't want to read the OSD in the
spirit intended. One has to find one's own.
If someone puts out a bunch of source code under
the MIT license, and the distro is OSI certifiable
Rick Moen wrote:
begin Greg London quotation:
If someone puts out a bunch of source code under the MIT license, and
the distro is OSI certifiable, there is nothing to prevent someone
else from redistributing it in binary form only. Their only penalty
is that they lose OSI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who can tell me which books about free software movement
and open source movement are popular in America, or worth
reading for those who are interested in these movements?
Could you list about five books? Thanks.
I can tell you 1 offhand. Open Sources by O'Reilly.
David Johnson wrote:
On Monday 24 September 2001 11:08 am, Greg London wrote:
You err slightly in (B). It does not mean that
the source code must be made equally available
to those without the binary.
you missed my following paragraph that said (paraphrasing)
:(B) somewhat implies public
Bruce Perens wrote:
Both the MIT license and Public Domain
fit under both the
OSD and RMS's definition of Free Software,
is it possible to take GPL'ed code,
modify it, relicense it under
a proprietary license, and distribute
it only in binary form?
my understanding is it is not possible.
under an OSI approved license.
If an OSI certified program is re-distributed
in manner that does not meet the OSD,
OSI's only recourse is to revoke certification.
Not all OSI approved licences require that
re-distributions meet the OSD. Choose your
license carefully.
Greg
--
Greg London
x7541
/history.html
Finis
Greg London
with apologies in advance to Eric Raymond.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
% OSD 2:
% The program must include source code, ...
%
% When some [program] is not distributed with
% source code, there must be a well-publicized
% means of obtaining the source code
%
% preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge.
so, according to OSD, you have two options
Subtitle:
Attack of the Bazaar-Nazi's
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3919:200109:eocppecokloobmpbdmgf
Also, change teh number 11 to 26 in
the text. I did not mean to imply
the OSD bullets, but the OSD approved
licenses themselves.
Greg
--
license-discuss archive is at
.
The difference is APSL does not give you the option
of limiting source code to people to whom you give
your distributions. OSD allows source code to be
contained within a circle of friends.
IANAL
Greg London
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Alex Stewart wrote:
If the point is to provide a
few good, clear-cut licenses
for people to choose from, that's one
thing, and suggests the OSI should be very picky.
If the goal is to encourage open-source licensing
terms amongst the software community,
that's very different, and
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Copyright law does not prohibit use. It prohibits reverse engineering
(and similar activities) under certain circumstances. I didn't intend
to be subtle about the meaning of the word use.
but reverse engineering was part of 'fair use' before DMCA, wasn't it?
Greg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a newcomer.Could tell me what the DMCA is?
good grief. your search engine must have flooded
its carbeurator. cause mine came up with a bazillion
hits with just 'dmca'. (yes, exactly 1 bazillion hits,
no more, no less.) ;)
but to give you a jump start, I think the
17 matches
Mail list logo
