Justin Wells wrote:
Usually, though, in order to run it you have to copy it into memory, and
without a specific grant, you don't have the right to make that copy. I
thought there was a court decision in the US which determined that copying
into RAM was "fixation" in copyright law.
It's
ot; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wired Article on the GPL
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:52:55 -0400
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:57:34PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Running the program is not part of the copyright rights-bundle: when you
acquire the program sans EULA-style license, you are an owner of that
Justin Wells wrote:
Usually, though, in order to run it you have to copy it into memory, and
without a specific grant, you don't have the right to make that copy. I
thought there was a court decision in the US which determined
that copying
into RAM was "fixation" in copyright law.
Richard Watts wrote:
Suppose A gives me a piece of software, X, and agrees to licence it
to me under the GPL. The GPL allows me to do a number of things, but,
critically, section 3 requires me to distribute source code with my
binaries - that's a consideration. It's clearly valuable.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:09:35 -0500, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly.
You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on
distribution, for instance -- or you don't,
According to Richard Watts:
Of course, the author also gets vicarious benefits from the
perceived greater reliability of the software he uses which is based
on the software he's written, even if none of it was actually
distributed to him [...]
I've got a better argument there (though, of
According to John Cowan:
Richard Watts wrote:
Suppose A gives me a piece of software, X, and agrees to licence it
to me under the GPL. The GPL allows me to do a number of things, but,
critically, section 3 requires me to distribute source code with my
binaries - that's a consideration.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:51:06 -0800, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
According to Richard Watts:
Of course, the author also gets vicarious benefits from the
perceived greater reliability of the software he uses which is based
on the software he's written, even if none of it was
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:52:32PM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Well, consider the possibility that we can get a court to agree that
the GPL is an enforceable contract if binaries are distributed. Isn't
that really the situation we are most concerned about?
Not only that, but I think it's
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:03:08 -0800, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
According to W . Yip:
As for intangibles like promises and forbearance, it must be recognised as
having economic value before it can take on the status of consideration.
I see. Thank you for grounding my speculation.
On Thursday 30 March 2000, W. Yip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:47:29 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But it turns out that that's not what they meant. The Wired article is just
written poorly. Someone on Slashdot quoted the actual law that they *were*
strong reason to believe that they are
authentic.
-- Dennis
--
Dennis E. Hamilton
InfoNuovo
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm)
fax. +1-425-793-0283
http://www.infonuovo.com
-Original Message-
From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 30,
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
I notice that the EULA I am looking at right now is not "signed" although I
have every reason to believe that it is authentic.
The statutory requirement applies to copyright licenses, which the GPL is
but the EULA is not.
--
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um
According to Mark Wielaard:
But the main document (the actual essay cp4break.html) says:
"The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it."
"You are allowed to mirror this document and the related files anywhere you
see fit."
Well, that about wraps it up for Mattel. Or it
According to W . Yip:
A purchaser, particularly a bona fide one, may not know anything
about the licenses attached to a copyright which he is purchasing,
and thus deserves protection from copyright holders who may be
dishonest.
Surely, though, that theory doesn't help Mattel -- they *did*
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
But I would consider it obvious that, once I have been granted me a
license to copy, neither the original copyright holder nor his assigns
have the authority to stop me. In other words, the license adheres to
the code, not the author.
Not obvious, probably not true.
According to John Cowan:
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author.
A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely
revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if
the landowner changes his mind, the
out, and we are left with a challenge to behave responsibly and
diligently.
-- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Chip Salzenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chip
Salzenberg
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:16
To: W . Yip
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely
revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if
the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a
trespasser.
I never thought I'd say this,
According to Nils Lohner:
This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license
is changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license?
No, no, you've confused license with contract. If you buy the
software, then there is an exchange of considerations, so there
is a (sale)
Nils Lohner wrote:
This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is
changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? I would argue that I
should have to abide by the license under which I bought it as I have never
had a chance to acept or reject the other
On Thursday 30 March 2000, Nils Lohner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chip Salzenberg writes:
According to John Cowan:
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author.
A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random
proprietary license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain
actions provided you meet certain conditions. The actions are copying,
distributing, and making derivative works. You
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly.
You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on
distribution, for instance -- or you don't, and if you don't, you have no
legal recourse for distribution.
You can
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:39:10PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random proprietary
license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain actions provided you
meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, distributing, and
making
G'day all.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:11:20AM +0100, W. Yip wrote:
Fellas, this seems to be the type of dispute we have been waiting for.
Is it too late to grab a copy of cphack now? Will I or won't I be able
to join the inevitable class action for breach of contract against M if
they _do_
According to Andrew J Bromage:
Will I or won't I be able to join the inevitable class action for
breach of contract against M if they _do_ revoke the GPL on cphack
if I've obtained my copy after the lawsuit was filed?
[IANAL] I suspect you'd be eligible even if you got it now, as long as
you
27 matches
Mail list logo
