On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
On 06/10/2012 10:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said, Bruce. You even
said 'Read caselaw.'
I think we need to come to grips to the fact that it may be possible for GPL
software
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
On 06/10/2012 10:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said, Bruce. You
even said 'Read caselaw.'
I think we need to come to grips to the fact that it may be possible
for GPL software to be embedded within a
On 06/11/2012 12:18 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
To be clear, NuSphere did not embed MySQL in their product, rather
they embedded closed source components into MySQL
Per Eben's testimony, the Gemini storage engine, using the MySQL API for
storage engines.
Which would be a funny relevation after a
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
On 06/11/2012 12:18 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
To be clear, NuSphere did not embed MySQL in their product, rather they
embedded closed source components into MySQL
Per Eben's testimony, the Gemini storage engine, using the
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
What legal theory would make a user of an API a derivative work if the API
is not itself copyrightable?
If there was a case like MySQL v. Nusphere without the contract, this
is what I'd argue. Note I'd avoid saying
On 06/11/2012 12:52 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
{scratches head} I think you must somehow be massively misreading what
I said. Perhaps you thought I'd expressed a view about using an API
(somehow) creating a derivative work? I didn't say anything of the sort.
It's regarding your statement:
it
On 05/06/12 17:59, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
I don't think that the inclusion of MPL 2.0 in any way a bad decision.
My assumption is that the Steward of the MPL requested that all
significant references to the the MPL be modified to point to the new
version. Similarly, the original list included
Gervase Markham wrote:
I'd add that, given that the MPL 2 is used by both Mozilla and LibreOffice,
two very substantial projects, I'd say it pretty much fits the criteria on
its own merits even without support from the large body of MPL 1.1+ software
out there.
I fully agree with the general
On 6/8/12 12:16 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
It amazes me that after all these years GPL proponents are still
professing willful ignorance as to why some permissive developers see a
difference between the two practices. Go figure.
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL proponent', sir.
This conflict has always been between certain factions of the GPL camp and
certain factions of the BSD camp whatever you wish to identify yourself as.
I am not a member of
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:39:06PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Anyway, as I just got through saying to Ben Tilly: (1) People
can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to
perform with their own property. (2) You should take care to understand
all of the implications
On 6/11/12 3:39 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
I am not, and never have been, in any sense a 'GPL proponent', sir.
This conflict has always been between certain factions of the GPL camp
and
certain factions of the BSD camp whatever
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do not confuse me with some
bunch of ideologue wankers.
What was the
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 03:20:12PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu):
Again, whatever your self identification is, your comment and statement
are those espoused by one of those camps over the years.
No, they most certainly are not. Kindly do not
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
These are generally exceptional cases that require either copyright
assignment or carefully controlled maintenance of contribution records
and continued contact with contributors. In cases where contributions to
the
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
Seeing these repeated references to my name is getting annoying.
This seems a little odd. All I said was that I'd recently made that
observation to you -- which was factually correct and certainly not
any offence to you or anyone else.
You like to
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Anyway, as I just got through saying to Ben Tilly: (1) People
can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to
perform with their own property. (2) You should take care to understand
all of the
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
Can you name a single case where a US court has said that if literal
copying of code is required for interoperability of practical software
or other practical tools (printer cartridges, garage door openers,
etc), that this gives the copyright
19 matches
Mail list logo
