Sorry for the late reply.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. said on Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 06:09:00PM -0400,:
private and personal use. Who would bring such a lawsuit, and how
would the suit get past a motion to dismiss?
How about a dictatorship?
Consider a tech-savvy dissident, who modified his
the
circumstances and in the manner as the hypothetical.
-Original Message-
From: Mahesh T. Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mahesh T. Pai
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 2:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the provide, license verbs
Sorry for the late reply.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. said
Hmm... I would not uncritically accept the principle that no matter what a
licensor says in her license, a licensee must follow the restriction
because of an assumption that it is legally enforceable. The rub -- no
doubt -- is that one must be careful not to ignore the terms of a license
at
The problem is that corporations like to define their coproprate
self, including all those that they hire or sub-contract from as a
single entity, just like the end user you (which may by the same
extension be a family all sharing one computer).
Now, traditionally, companies have not tracked down
Sorry to follow-up to myself, but
As a result, I think at some point someone will sue someone over the
fact that the party being sued internally distributed software
violating the suing party's license which had requirements on
distribution that the party being sued did not meet.
I think that
Quoting Chris F Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The problem is that corporations like to define their coproprate
self, including all those that they hire or sub-contract from as a
single entity, just like the end user you (which may by the same
extension be a family all sharing one computer).
As
Rick Moen scripsit:
With rare exceptions, if you use a licence other than BSD (new or
old), MIT/X, GPL, LGPL, MPL, CPL, AFL, OSL, you're probably dooming
your project to gratuitous and pointless licence incompatibility with
third-party codebases and ensuring that it will be
hi ya john
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick Moen scripsit:
With rare exceptions, if you use a licence other than BSD (new or
old), MIT/X, GPL, LGPL, MPL, CPL, AFL, OSL, you're probably dooming
your project to gratuitous and pointless licence incompatibility
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I did a little research at Sourceforge and Freshmeat, looking at licenses
(excluding the non-FLOSS ones at Sourceforge).
Thanks! Interesting and worthwhile, as usual.
Licenses you didn't mention:
8% Artistic or Perl
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:
The author gives me a copy of the software...
Under no license?
Marius, if you receive a piece of software encumbered by copyright (as
essentially all useful software is), you have the implied right to use
and (if
I essentially agree with Rick's comment, but it may be somewhat misleading.
I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the
license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of
software that is accompanied by a license, you are restricted to accepting
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the
license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of
software that is accompanied by a license, you are restricted to accepting
the terms of the license or rejecting
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I know all this. But can you give an open source software without a
license?
Think of it this way: There's a default licence (absent an explicit
licence statement) that is implicit in copyright law. Copyright law
grants to lawful recipients the
Think of it this way: There's a default licence (absent an explicit
licence statement) that is implicit in copyright law. Copyright law
grants to lawful recipients the right to compile and the right to use --
but not the right to create derivative works or
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I essentially agree with Rick's comment, but it may be somewhat misleading.
I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the
license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of
software that is
Quoting Stephen C. North ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Do you say the law prevents me from taking a legal copy of a copyrighted
work, which is a program, and privately modifying that program for my own use?
John Cowan says yes:
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/modifications
Dan Bernstein says no:
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Rick Moen scripsit:
When you get that resolved, please let me know.
Resolved how?
I was looking forward to seeing Stephen C. North make the attempt -- but
then, I always did have a deplorably low sense of humour.
--
Cheers,
I was looking forward to seeing Stephen C. North make the attempt -- but
then, I always did have a deplorably low sense of humour.
As with most matters raised here, it's been resolved - in the imagination
of the writer.
This is license-discuss, not license-reality so, all's
Quoting Stephen C. North ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
As with most matters raised here, it's been resolved - in the imagination
of the writer.
To be serious for a moment, I don't have a definitive answer to your
question. Sorry.
On a prior occasion (elsewhere) when the question came up, I referred
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I essentially agree with Rick's comment, but it may be somewhat misleading.
I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the
license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of
software that is
Now, that is a genuine academic argument. I am sure the issue will never be
resolved to everyone's satisfaction...primarily because no one cares enough
about what you do to software you lawfully possess and want to hack for
private and personal use. Who would bring such a lawsuit, and how would
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Now, that is a genuine academic argument. I am sure the issue will never be
resolved to everyone's satisfaction...primarily because no one cares enough
about what you do to software you lawfully possess and want to hack for
private and
It's not entirely academic what do you with your legal copy of a program in the
darkness of your room... :-) after all, what if you were legal corporation or
entity, using it for your private use and making money from it?
The GPL doesn't care.
The QPL, reflecting Trolltech's concerns, does.
Quoting No Spam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The QPL, reflecting Trolltech's concerns, does [care what you do with
code in private]. Look at 4c...
4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or
machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software,
provided
All, esp. Rick:
It depends on what you mean by distribute.
If distribute here means offer or give to the public (i.e. anyone who is not you)
then QPL 6c doesn't make any sense, since by definition then the item is available to
the general public.
If distribute here means offer to give to a
Quoting No Spam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If distribute here means offer or give to the public (i.e. anyone who
is not you) then QPL 6c doesn't make any sense, since by definition
then the item is available to the general public.
Not my reading. It seems to me to say If you distribute this
26 matches
Mail list logo
