Re: Reverse Engineering and Derived Works in Open Source Licenses?

Quoting James Michael DuPont ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): www.cs.berkeley.edu/~mdw/linux/gpl-ucc2b.html Does anyone care to comment? Matt Welsh's observation amounts to saying that the GPL (and, by extension, other licences) place no impediment on writing an independent implementation of the same

Re: Reverse Engineering and Derived Works in Open Source Licenses?

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:39:10 -0800 (PST) James Michael DuPont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am just reading up on the relationship between reverse engineering and derived works. This article seems to apply to all open source licenses, not just the GPL.

Re: legal issues under GPL

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:39:24AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Be sure to distinguish the following: * copyright in the original work (you apparently own that) * copyright in the contributions (contributors own that) * copyright in derivative works you create (you own that)

Re: Question about GPL with exception (MGE UPS SYSTEMS)

Hi, First of all, I wish to thank all the people who contributed in clarifying our questions. This mail is the conclusion of the MGE and OSI/License thread: 1) MGE's HID Parser is available since yesterday under GPL, without any exception as it is implied for MGE by its copyright

Liberation of free software from non-free libraries (was Re: Reverse Engineering and Derived Works in Open Source Licenses?)

--- Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting James Michael DuPont ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): www.cs.berkeley.edu/~mdw/linux/gpl-ucc2b.html Does anyone care to comment? Matt Welsh's observation amounts to saying that the GPL (and, by extension, other licences) place no impediment on

Re: legal issues under GPL

Chris D. Sloan scripsit: Now, here's my first uncertainty: I think that the GPL requires that AP also be under the GPL, Yes. Since A is under the GPL, all derivative works must be under the GPL as well. and it may also require that P be under the GPL too. I'm not exactly sure. No. What

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

John, thanks again, and once more please find my comments inserted below. - Original Message - From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abe Kornelis scripsit: The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude: you must supply changes in source form to people who

Re: Must publish vs. must supply

Abe Kornelis scripsit: Not wanting to compromise the relation with their software supplier being one fairly good reason, habitual secretiveness another one, and avoiding to be seen as untrustworthy or undependable by their own customers as yet another (very

Re: a BSD-like license that isn't template based

Regarding 'open' (no pun intended) question to RMS about compatibility of AFL to GPL - I visited with Richard last evening; he's in Austin for SXSW Interactive. I conveyed this question to him. Any of you who have carried on a conversation with Richard can understand the constrained,