Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

flexibility from your contributors. As has been noted by others here, there are multiple options available: * Copyright assignment: heavy weight, difficult for corporate copyright holders, seen as a significant barrier to contribution * Contributor license agreement providing broad licensing privil

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

e BSD licence, then > users of that code have to comply with the license, because you are no > longer able to offer a waiver for the code to which you do not own the > copyright. You have three possible options: What if we accepted contributions from individuals but only "acknowledged&

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

MENT" >> file without modifying at all the "(c) TheCompany" in the license >> itself and therefore not granting any ownership rights to the >> contributors? > > Copyright doesn't work like that. The copyright automatically belongs to > the author, and you need a

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

self and therefore not granting any ownership rights to the > contributors? Copyright doesn't work like that. The copyright automatically belongs to the author, and you need a license or transfer or other legal agreement to change that situation. You can't take their copyright simply by virtual

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

On 02/10/15 10:22, Gervase Markham wrote: * Pick a project license which does not require attribution (that basically means a Public Domain dedication); or Public domain dedication is impossible in Europe. There is some doubt as whether it is even possible in the USA. The nearest you would

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

r > company? Because that's really all we're after here, allowing certain > customers not to have to mention that they are using our libraries. > I would not recommend changing the license itself as that would require OSI approval as a new license, but if that is the only issue, and reprod

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

On 02/10/15 11:05, David Woolley wrote: > Public domain dedication is impossible in Europe. There is some doubt > as whether it is even possible in the USA. The nearest you would get is > something like CC0, which attempts to disclaim as much IPR as it is > possible to disclaim. That is indeed

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

a BSD 3-clause and immediately >> publish the source code on a public code repository allowing >> contributions from users. The questions that have arisen are the >> following: >> >> 1) Clause 2 requires users that distribute the software in binary form >> to

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

you do not own the copyright. You have three possible options: * Pick a project license which does not require attribution (that basically means a Public Domain dedication); or * Require copyright assignment or a very broad copyright license to all contributions, so that you can continue to o

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

a BSD 3-clause and immediately >> publish the source code on a public code repository allowing >> contributions from users. The questions that have arisen are the >> following: >> >> 1) Clause 2 requires users that distribute the software in binary form >> to reprodu

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

On 02/10/15 15:36, Zluty Sysel wrote: > So just to be sure, if the contributors waiver their ownership rights, > then the 3-clause BSD stands and if users do not acknowledge usage of > the software in their binary distributions it is up to the company to > choose whether to enforce or not that

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

Can we allow these customers not to reproduce the BSD license text even if our AUTHORS file contains names and email addresses of people outside of our company? Because that's really all we're after here, allowing certain customers not to have to mention that they are using our libraries. If

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: >> Can we allow these >> customers not to reproduce the BSD license text even if our AUTHORS >> file contains names and email addresses of people outside of our >> company? Because that's really all we're after

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

Quoting Stephen Paul Weber (singpol...@singpolyma.net): > If you want to be open source and do not want to require > attribution, why not consider or similar? Like most recent licences that aim to be more minimal than MIT/X11 License and Fair License (both OSI Certified,

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

fixed form. Failing to mention that ownership interest in a copyright notice, or a THANKS or ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS file, or elsewhere cannot make the contributor's ownership right go away. It simply cannot.[1] All you accomplish by omitting mention of such ownership claims is to deliberately fail to adv

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

arisen are the > following: > > 1) Clause 2 requires users that distribute the software in binary form > to reproduce the copyright notice. Since the holder of the copyright > notice is the very same company that makes the source code available > to them, would it be possible to selec

[License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

clarify. We want to use a BSD 3-clause and immediately publish the source code on a public code repository allowing contributions from users. The questions that have arisen are the following: 1) Clause 2 requires users that distribute the software in binary form to reproduce the copyright notice

Re: [License-discuss] BSD 3-clause and copyright notices

arisen are the > following: > > 1) Clause 2 requires users that distribute the software in binary form > to reproduce the copyright notice. Since the holder of the copyright > notice is the very same company that makes the source code available > to them, would it be possible to selec

[License-discuss] Copyright holders evolution with MIT license

Hello, I have a question regarding the copyright holders of a software under the MIT license. My case is this one : - Some software was developped under the MIT license in Company1 in 2014 - The software is now (2015) developped by Company2 and will be released under the same MIT license

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Bradley Kuhn wrote at 15:46 on Monday: … It's admittedly a strange behavior, and I've been asking Red Hat Legal

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

compilation. While the description you give there is a bit too vague to analyze against the USA copyright statue (i.e., the example lacks any real world facts), I'd suspect that the default case of that situation, at least in the USA, is the creation of a new single work that derives from those

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

...@umbc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:35 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract From http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red HatR

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

vague to analyze against the USA copyright statue (i.e., the example lacks any real world facts), I'd suspect that the default case of that situation, at least in the USA, is the creation of a new single work that derives from those components, plus their own code. The compilation copyright

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Lawrence Rosen scripsit: I do so because my clients expect to profit (either financially or in reputation credits) for delivering comprehensive solutions that include FOSS components. It's kind of hard to see how this could be the case for releasing a compilation under the GPL. There's no

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

From http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Bradley Kuhn wrote at 15:46

Re: [License-discuss] Al Re: Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): We have dropped Al from the list, as we believe he is Alexander Terekhov, and he refused to deny it when asked. Rick Moen wrote at 18:28 (EDT) on Monday: The authorial 'voice' matches.

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Quoting Nick Yeates (nyeat...@umbc.edu): I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is... Copyright law recognises the possiblity of an abstract property called a 'compilation copyright', that being the ownership interest gained by someone who _creatively_ collects and assembles other

Re: [License-discuss] Al Re: Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): We have dropped Al from the list, as we believe he is Alexander Terekhov, and he refused to deny it when asked. Rick Moen wrote at 18:28 (EDT) on Monday: The authorial 'voice' matches. Even so, I wasn't completely convinced that Al Foxtone was Terekhov

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

system consisting of ... Is SUSE licensing that compilation/arrangement copyright under GPL, though, or a broad permissive license? Looks like the latter, from the selective quoting you give above. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Rick Moen wrote at 16:55 (EDT) on Friday: You seem to be trying to imply without saying so that the source-access obligations of copyleft licences somehow give you additional rights in other areas _other_ than source acccess. What I'm saying is, no, that's just not the case. GPL (and other

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

John Cowan wrote at 19:42 (EDT) on Thursday: So it's perfectly parallel, reading packages for patches. Not quite, the details are different since it's different parts of the copyright controls. Patches are typical derivative works themselves of the original work. Thus, both the arrangement

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: Patches are typical derivative works themselves of the original work. That's a very debatable point, though I doubt there is much point in debating it here yet again. My view is that a patch by itself makes only fair use of the original, though it's true that a

Re: [License-discuss] Al Re: Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): We have dropped Al from the list, as we believe he is Alexander Terekhov, and he refused to deny it when asked. The authorial 'voice' matches. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)

Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com): My understanding is that the GPL applies to object code aside from source-access obligations. [Reminder: There _are_ other copyleft licences. In RHEL, even.] Show me an object-code RPM in RHEL for which Red Hat, Inc. do not provide the open source /

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted software, I'm usually focused on things like the maintainer chose which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release So it's perfectly parallel, reading packages for patches. I

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com): Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in that original form due to trademarks

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

Bradley Kuhn asked: It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples? When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted software, I'm usually focused on things like the maintainer

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday: I don't see where the oddity comes in. If we grant that the compilation which is RHEL required a creative spark in the selection (for the arrangement is mechanical), then it is a fit object of copyright. It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract

understanding is that when the GPL licensee distributes copies of derivative works prepared under the GPL permission, the GPL insists on licensing the copyright in a derivative work under the GPL and only the GPL. Correct, AFAIK. Since creation of derivative work (and even distribution

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)

for the asserted compilation copyright is indeed a little weird, but it's rather unlikely to be adjudicated. Contract and trademark are a different matter. My recollection is that Red Hat, Inc. assert trademark encumbrances concerning two non-software SRPMs containing artwork, etc. Those two

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)

which has been organized by Red Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Red Hat then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the collective work. To grant this permission Red Hat usually uses the GNU General Public License (“GPL”) version 2 and Red Hat’s own End User

[License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)

Al Foxone asked me on Friday at 13:58 (EDT) about: http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf ... At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright

Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)

Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: It's certainly possible to license all sorts of copyrights under GPL, since it's a copyright license. Red Hat has chosen, IMO rather oddly, to claim strongly a compilation copyright on putting together RHEL and Red Hat licenses that copyright under terms of GPL. I

[License-discuss] Copyright Free Software Foundation, but license not GPL

, permissive licenses: MIT, BSD, etc. Here's my question: quite frequently, the programmer makes the Free Software Foundation the copyright holder, but then attaches a license that is not in the GPL family. Is that a valid combination? In the case of ncurses, I was able to research and determine

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright Free Software Foundation, but license not GPL

of licenses, as well as the other, permissive licenses: MIT, BSD, etc. Here's my question: quite frequently, the programmer makes the Free Software Foundation the copyright holder, but then attaches a license that is not in the GPL family. Is that a valid combination? It's technically valid

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright Free Software Foundation, but license not GPL

/AGPL suite of licenses, as well as the other, permissive licenses: MIT, BSD, etc. Here's my question: quite frequently, the programmer makes the Free Software Foundation the copyright holder, but then attaches a license that is not in the GPL family. Is that a valid combination? It can be, yes

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright Free Software Foundation, but license not GPL

question: quite frequently, the programmer makes the Free Software Foundation the copyright holder, but then attaches a license that is not in the GPL family. Is that a valid combination? It's technically valid, in that the FSF (as a non-profit corporation) can hold copyrightable assets under any

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright Free Software Foundation, but license not GPL

of licenses, as well as the other, permissive licenses: MIT, BSD, etc. Here's my question: quite frequently, the programmer makes the Free Software Foundation the copyright holder, but then attaches a license that is not in the GPL family. Is that a valid combination? It's technically valid

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright Free Software Foundation, but license not GPL

quite familiar with the GPL/LGPL/AGPL suite of licenses, as well as the other, permissive licenses: MIT, BSD, etc. Here's my question: quite frequently, the programmer makes the Free Software Foundation the copyright holder, but then attaches a license that is not in the GPL family. Is that a valid

Re: [License-discuss] Copyright Free Software Foundation, but license not GPL

that they would reject a work for being permissive. Of course, with FSF holding the copyright they can, theoretically, determine the license. However, they are much less likely to do this as long as there is still an active developer running the project and the license used meets the four freedoms

Re: Copyright Act preempts the wave theory of light

BSD Protector writes: With all due respect, this mailing list is called: license-discuss. 1. GPL is a license. 2. It is being discussed. 3. It is not a license under consideration for approval by OSI. Therefore ... it is off-topic for this mailing list. -- --My blog is at

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Chloe Hoffman scripsit: You may want to take a look at Stewart v. Abend. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=USvol=495invol=207 An interesting case, but not really apropos, because the pre-1976 copyright renewal scheme, like the corresponding termination provisions in post

Copyright Act preempts the wave theory of light

Can we stop these posts already? -- Daniel Carrera | No trees were harmed in the generation of this e-mail. PhD student. | A significant number of electrons were, however, severely Math Dept. UMD | inconvenienced. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Copyright Act preempts the wave theory of light

to acknowledge widely divergent opinions exist regarding the legality of the GPL (and have for a long time) and that the best way of 'establishing' its' legal basis is still to wait and see how it fares once tested before a court. That may happen during the SCOX vs. IBM litigation. Subject: Copyright

Copyright Act preempts itself

Now, I promise that this is not a troll. Really, I do. I was simply reading the Copyright Act again and found this in section 106: - Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do

RE: Copyright Act preempts itself

Thanks. I wasn't actually expecting an answer. I was just thinking outloud after I've read a lot of the such and such preempts the GPL stuff. What I've concluded after reading the Copyright Act is that: 1. The Act explicitly establishes the concept of licensing, completely independently of any

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

. Conversion by mere mechanical act doesn't constitute creation of derivative work. regards, alexander. To: Alexander Terekhov/Germany/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL Alexander Terekhov scripsit: Why is it a derivative work

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Alexander Terekhov scripsit: To me, compilers (and tools like http://world.altavista.com) do nothing but transliteration, not translation in the legal sense. I may be wrong, of course. A strong point, certainly; but I think legal language, like ordinary language, applies mechanical to only

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

In addition to the point made, you might inquire whether what a machine does when compiling code is an apt comparison to what an individual does when translating text. My answer is no since machines cannot be authors under Copyright law. Rod On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, John Cowan wrote: Alexander

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Alexander Terekhov scripsit: To me, compilers (and tools like http://world.altavista.com) do nothing but transliteration, not translation in the legal sense. I may be wrong, of course. I may be off the mark, but to me, part of the implied question (perhaps in an earlier post?) is whether

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Rod Dixon scripsit: In addition to the point made, you might inquire whether what a machine does when compiling code is an apt comparison to what an individual does when translating text. My answer is no since machines cannot be authors under Copyright law. Questionless. But machines don't

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions exclusive to the copyright holder, a copyright holder could go to court and use the copyright rights to overcome the impediment - that would be an exercise of an affirmative right. As I am not aware of an example of a copyright

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

John Cowan wrote: [...] Questionless. But machines don't compile code, people use machines to compile code. Similarly, you can use the GIMP to colorize a photograph (thus creating a derivative work), Absent some additional creative input (e.g. selection of color) from human being, I

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:34 AM To: Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit: If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions exclusive

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit: If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions exclusive to the copyright holder, a copyright holder could go to court and use the copyright rights to overcome the impediment - that would be an exercise of an affirmative right

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

for Idiots_. Bob goes to court and proves that by a transfer of copyright ownership, he is the copyright owner of _CfI_ and therefore has the right under Section 106 (a) to reproduce the copyrighted work. Surely this right is affirmative? -- John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Your hypothetical is directly on point: Bob goes to court and proves that by a transfer of copyright ownership, he is the copyright owner of _CfI_ and therefore has the right under Section 106 (a) to reproduce the copyrighted work. Surely this right is affirmative? That is precisely the right

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

, this is in the context of litigation - Alice is asserting that Bob does not have the right to copy, for whatever reason. Because Bob's right is in question, it does him no good. Let's clean up the hypo a bit to get some clarity on Scott's position, that a copyright does not grant someone

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Hmm...there is a part of your argument that is appealing in a conceptual sense, and I think it would be correct to say that Copyright law has allowed for distinctions between the compiled program and source code. For example, one could refer to source code as a literal aspect of software

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

I must be missing something from your argument. It sounds like you are describing copyright infringement. If so, the impediment can be removed if the court agrees. Rod On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) wrote: If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

be distributed under other licenses than the GPL. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

In referring to negative and affirmative rights, I am not attempting to invoke any magic words. I am merely offering a way of thinking about copyright rights. I offer the characterization (copyright as a negative right) because I find that it captures in a simple concept an analytical device

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Unfortunately, I don't understand your comment. if the court agrees - Agrees with what? -- Scott -Original Message- From: Rod Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:07 PM To: Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The Copyright Act

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

that in some cases fair use is not an insignificant matter. In addition, when you apply judicial interpretations of derivative use, you begin to notice that the language of the Copyright Act is a mere starting point. How judicial doctrine on derivative use will be applied to software or other

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

John Cowan wrote: [...] A tarball that contains works by various authors is a compilation work; a compiled program made from that tarball is a derivative work of the individual files of the tarball, ... Why is it a derivative work? I could imagine a computer (interpreter) that can run

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Scott, my understanding is the same as Larry's. Copyright provides exclusive plenary rights to the owner. Patents provide the owner only with the right to exclude others. I think the distinction was grounded in the fact that it would be hard to conflict with someone else's copyright

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Alan writes an original computer program. It is 3 lines long. It is called Hello world. Bob takes Alan's program and replaces line 2. The new program is called Goodbye asshole. Goodbye asshole is a derivative work. If Bob did not have Alan's permission to create a derivative work then he gets

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Daniel -- A copyright right is not an affirmative right to do something. It is a negative right. It is a right to prevent someone else from doing something. (This 'negative' characteristic is true of patent rights as well - they are also negative rights.) A copyright holder does not have a right

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit: A copyright holder does not have a right to make a copy. Rather, the copyright holder has the right to prevent others from making a copy. Of course the copyright holder has the right to make a copy of the work. That is to say that each person has a duty

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

John -- I'll reply to two points: (A) an authors positive right to copy? no. (B) derivative works: what rights does the author of the original work have (A) You say: each person has a duty not to hinder him [the author making a copy of his own work]. I am aware of no basis in US copyright law

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Scott writes: (A) You say: each person has a duty not to hinder him [the author making a copy of his own work]. I am aware of no basis in US copyright law for such a duty. I am aware of no basis in US copyright law for a positive right to make a copy. By writing something down, you become

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott writes: (A) You say: each person has a duty not to hinder him [the author making a copy of his own work]. I am aware of no basis in US copyright law for such a duty. I am aware of no basis in US copyright law for a positive right to make a copy

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

A copyright owner (owner of a wholly original work) has a number of affirmative exclusive rights: 17 U.S.C.A. § 106 UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 17. COPYRIGHTS CHAPTER 1--SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

The list is archived at: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 This thread began sometime near the end of January. Your assertion that these are affirmative rights is misleading. The copyright owner has the right to be the exclusive one to do those things, but that's different from saying

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; ... has the exclusive right to do ... appears to signal that the owner of the copyright has the affirmative right to do what is stated. Stated in another way, giving

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Scott Peterson wrote: The rights provided under US copyright law are negative rights (the right to exclude others), not positive rights (the right to do something yourself). I don't think so, Scott. At least that's not how the copyright act reads: ...The owner of copyright under

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit: By writing something down, you become a copyright owner. That ownership right does not give you any special privilege or right to copy, distribute, etc. that work. If others have rights that are infringed by such acts, they are free to assert those

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

rather than a derivative work. He also has no rights in the derivative work as a whole - such rights don't exist. There is no copyright in the work as a whole, only seperate copyrights in the pre-existing work, and in the added work. This directly contravenes the text of the statute

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

work as a whole - such rights don't exist. There is no copyright in the work as a whole, only seperate copyrights in the pre-existing work, and in the added work. This directly contravenes the text of the statute. No. You have to read §103 carefully. I explain below. The copyright owner

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

area, or one distribution channel - satellite, terrestrial, cable, etc.. It is also common to limit the right to make derivative works to one medium - TV, Film, HDTV, etc. Sure, I said licenses were often conditional. But if you want a license to distribute, you go to the copyright holder

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Danese Cooper wrote: I know that some of the bigger firms in the US are explicitly copyrighting their briefs. Having a copyright on an expression of an information process is very different than having a patent on the process itself. As long as you don't infringe

RE: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1462778,00.asp I love it. They filed a patent for a process my company had a working example of long before the date of filing, and unlike these guys, we actually implemented it and ran it. We don't run our site,

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

Brian Behlendorf scripsit: I love it. They filed a patent for a process my company had a working example of long before the date of filing, and unlike these guys, we actually implemented it and ran it. We don't run our site, SourceXchange, any longer, but it's still infuriating to see IBM

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

I know that some of the bigger firms in the US are explicitly copyrighting their briefs. D John Cowan wrote: Game theory lesson: file a patent on *anything* you're doing. I'm considering filing one on the particular way I walk down the hall after waking up in the morning. Why not? That

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

whether infinity or infinity-minus-one is larger. Patents get 14-20 years depending upon the type of patent: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/data.htm#PatentProtectionLength Copyright depends on the circumstances of the creation. Works for hire get 95 years from publication or 120 years

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

the software (and I have no way to innovate around) has the *effect* of not allowing me to exercise rights I would normally have in copyright such as the right to distribute my own software. It is true that I still hold copyright and will be able to exercise those rights at the end of the term

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

Just a coupe of corrections: On Tuesday 27 January 2004 21:11, Robert Osfield wrote: The software patents directive which so far has been turned around at first vote in EP vote back in the summer which ratified that pure software is patentable, as per the 1974 Europen Patent Convention.

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

Hi Alex, On Wednesday 28 January 2004 15:19, Alexander Terekhov wrote: As an individual (being not at work and not part of some collaborative product development community [CPL terms are the best for it, I believe]), I release the code straight into the public domain, for example:

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Daniel and Russell, I've been following this discussion with a great deal of interest, and because I'm fairly inexperienced in the topic at hand, I hope that one or both of you will clarify something for me... On Wednesday 28 January 2004 03:44 am, daniel wallace wrote: It does not. The GPL

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

Robert Osfield wrote: [...] vulnerabilities and risks to our livelihood. If you don't intend to eliminate all IP laws (as an ultimate solution to the problem of vulnerabilities and risks), then something like www.pubpat.org is the way to go, I think. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss

  1   2   3   >