This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client is established. etc etc
- Original Message -
From: "SamBC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: Copyright & License Questions
> > -Original Message-
On Thursday 21 June 2001 09:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) I've read that one should copyright their work and from there choose an
> Open Source license. Isn't copyrighting, though, against the concept of
> Open Source?
Any software you create is automatically copyrighted by you. In order
So long as it is framed as a license, I like it. By the way, another
important reason to license your software rather than simply try to dump
it into the "public domain" (whatever or wherever that is) is that you
can disclaim warranties that way! /Larry Rosen
> -Original Message-
> From
> > And suppose you later retract your abandonment? What's to
> prevent that?
>
>
> What's to prevent my "retracting" any abandonment of any sort?
> If I put my chair on the street with a signed notice saying "I, the
> owner of this chair, abandon all rights to it" (neglecting for the
> moment
The purpose of the Permissive Public License is to achieve
the effect that people think they have achieved by attempting to
put their works into the public domain. Given that they cannot directly
do that, the PPL grants all rights to everybody and disclaims
all warranties.
I would like it to be
You have asked a terribly complex question. Two issues are at stake: what
body of law might apply to a dispute over your software AND where might
you be haled in to court. In other words the answer depends on
choice-of-law rules and jurisdiction over the defendant ...(not to
mention
any treaty tha
Paul Reilly wrote:
> Unless I've missed something, the GPL V2 doesn't specify in which
> country's courts any dispute should be heard.
That is intentional, since it is meant to be used by developers in
all countries, and changing it is forbidden.
> Has anyone looked at where that leaves a sy
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> And suppose you later retract your abandonment? What's to prevent that?
What's to prevent my "retracting" any abandonment of any sort?
If I put my chair on the street with a signed notice saying "I, the
owner of this chair, abandon all rights to it" (neglecting for
> Nobody can "do away" with their copyright "by providing a notice that
> places the work in the public domain."
>
>> No, one can't. But I don't see why an author cannot abandon
>> their Title 17 rights explicitly, just as any other property right
can
>> be abandoned explicitly. This, surely, is
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> >
> > Wrong. If you are the license holder, you are free to re-license as you
> > see
> >
> [DJW:] I assume a typo for "copyright holder". (I should
> proof read b
> From: Stephane Routelous [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> If my Library is under the GPL, the users are not able to sell an
> application using my Library.
[DJW:]
This is not true. They can sell a copy of the library for any
price that the market will bear. What they c
IANAL, but my understanding, at least here in the UK, is that when no
jurisdiction is specified the licensee may choose. I could easily be wrong,
but that is what have previously been lead to believe.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Nobody can "do away" with their copyright "by providing a notice that
> places the work in the public domain."
No, one can't. But I don't see why an author cannot abandon
their Title 17 rights explicitly, just as any other property right can
be abandoned explicitly.
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> > 7) If I had a client who hired me to do a customized and
> closed-version of
> > the Open Source software, what license would enable me to do so?
>
>
> Almost any except the GPL.
Wrong. If you are the license holde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) I've read that one should copyright their work and from there choose an
> Open Source license. Isn't copyrighting, though, against the concept of
> Open Source?
No. A public-domain work is Open Source, but most Open Source works
have copyrights. By copyrightin
> > Some authors are comfortable not to have any control
> whatsoever over how
> > their work is used, distributed and modified. They can "do
> away" with
> > their
> > copyright by providing a notice that places the work in the
> public domain.
> > Such software, which legally speaking is no l
> From: J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Some authors are comfortable not to have any control whatsoever over how
> their work is used, distributed and modified. They can "do away" with
> their
> copyright by providing a notice that places the work in the public domain.
> Such sof
[Please use plain text for email rather than HTML]
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:28:25 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm new to these open source issues. So the following questions may be
>quite naive:
>1) I've read that one should copyright their work and from there choose an
>Open Source licen
Hi,
I'm new to these open source issues. So the following questions may be quite
naive:
1) I've read that one should copyright their work and from there choose an
Open Source license. Isn't copyrighting, though, against the concept of Open
Source?
2) If I were to assign a copyright, is it a
I speak as a systems integrator, located in the United Kingdom.
Unless I've missed something, the GPL V2 doesn't specify in which country's
courts any dispute should be heard. (By comparison, the Mozilla PL
specifies the courts of California; QPL specifies Norway, and so on).
Has anyone looked
> Any chance I can get an electronic copy, so I can put them up for public
> access?
Hmmm, Brian actually screened me to ask why I wanted the
templates - I feel uncomfortable putting them up on line after he
clearly took steps to control the distribution of them. Perhaps
you could ask him? assi
On Thursday 21 June 2001 12:58 am, Henningsen wrote:
> Currently that is the rule no doubt, but I think we could get open
> source code written faster and probably better if people could
> actually expect getting paid for their work. In exchange for giving
> up his/her copyrights, a contributor to
Hello,
thanks for your help.
Basically , I want to developp a Class Libary , extending an OpenSource
Class Libary licensed under a pseudo-LGPL.
If my Library is under the GPL, the users are not able to sell an
application using my Library.
If my Library is under the LGPL, the users can sell th
23 matches
Mail list logo
