Nick Yeates wrote:I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is
and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn asked, and Larry responded saying
basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did not state *why*
he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote at 04:31 (EDT):
Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European
administrations and Member states) have build applications from
multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a
single license for distributing the whole
...@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
This is indeed depending on the case: people (developers) always declare (often
after the work has been done, and not before as it should be) that they used
products X,Y, Z. But what do they mean by use? Aggregating? Linking? Copying
only some APIs or data formats in order to ensure that
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
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
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
Al Foxone wrote at 04:18 (EDT) on Saturday:
en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:License This agreement governs your download,
installation, or use of openSUSE 12.3 and its ...The openSUSE Project
grants to you a license to this collective work pursuant to
the ...openSUSE 12.3 is a modular Linux operating
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
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
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
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 /
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
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
[mailto:bk...@ebb.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:19 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: 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
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
Al Foxone wrote at 07:57 (EDT):
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 (without additional trademark
license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit
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 (without additional trademark
license, says Red Hat) and under
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
