A couple of things-
1) I take umbrage with law vs. law enforcement issues. I guess its b/c as a
public policy guy I notice that laws without teeth are more ineffective and
troublesome than no law at all. His point about "forbidding transformation"
is valid. Moreover, it speaks directly to his s
I.R.Maturana scripsit:
> When using the expression "derivative work" you are including
> publication/distribution: That is: you read my phrase as if I was
> describing a "published-distributed-derivative" work".
No, I understand you correctly, but you are simply in error.
The U.S. copyright law
Ken Arromdee scripsit:
> Here, "intent to circumvent the license" just means "intent to follow the
> letter of the license while not following it's spirit".
"A dirty dog will get no dinner from the courts."
Laws aren't programs, and judges definitely aren't computers.
They have a keen sense of
Emiliano scripsit:
> I don't think it'd be a good approach (legally or morally), but isn't
> the licensee bound by the text of the license, and nothing else?
When it comes right down to it, the judge (or the appellate judges)
are the ones who give that text its meaning.
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL P
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> How do you know that such an intention was there? Perhaps the program
> was designed to link with another, compatible non-GPL DLL, and mere
> compatibility allows it to link with the GPL DLL? I really don't know
> what a judge would say, and I expect that you don't k
Emiliano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > > I am totally uneducated in the matters of license legalities, but is it
> > > actually illegal to circumvent a license? If the wording of the license
> > > allows a particular use, will the court read the letter of the licen
On Saturday 16 March 2002 01:16 am, Emiliano wrote:
> > Your first point is interesting. I'm wondering how one could demonstrate
> > that a library was meant to be invoked by non-derivative works. Here the
> > criteria that I would use: the library is a separate distinct package,
> > and the inte
John Taylor McEntire scripsit:
> [ Please discuss this license. -russ ]
I think this license is plainly open source and should be fast tracked.
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne
David Johnson wrote:
> I would suggest that proprietary licenses that restrict
> linkage do so by
> restricting the *use* of the library, and not by being
> redundant with regards
> to copyright law.
I agree.
/Larry Rosen
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cg
Emiliano writes:
> I don't think it'd be a good approach (legally or morally), but isn't
> the licensee bound by the text of the license, and nothing else?
Again, I must stress that this is not based on experience, but instead
on learning. From what I have read, what really matters is your
int
This is pretty interesting. What hooks are you speaking of?
Ken Brown
-Original Message-
From: Ed Sutter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:57 AM
To: David Christensen
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. MICROMONITOR SOFTWARE PUBLIC LICENSE
Bruce Perens wrote:
> I feel that the draft GPL change for the ASP issue chooses the wrong
> balance point between the right to privacy and the right to modify.
>
> In my opinion, the correct solution would be to require publication
> of derived works, with one-time notification to FSF
Why to th
Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I am totally uneducated in the matters of license legalities, but is it
> > actually illegal to circumvent a license? If the wording of the license
> > allows a particular use, will the court read the letter of the license
> > or the spirit of the license?
>
> In my
Russell Nelson wrote:
> > It would be wrong to require publication of modified versions
> > that are used privately, but inviting the public to use a server
> > is not private use.
>
> I'm not sure that the GPL-using community is going to agree with you
> on this. For example, if someone deci
David Johnson wrote:
> > I say "almost completely" because I think the burden of proof should
> > shift to the creator of an alleged derivative work to demonstrate either
> > (1) the DLL was designed and intended to be invoked dynamically by
> > programs that are not "derivative works" of that DL
David Johnson wrote:
> I was not judging any type of application. Instead I was prognosticating from
> my own particular perspective. No offense was intended and I hope you don't
> take it as such. I do foresee a need for web services and other forms of
> centralized processing. But I still doubt
16 matches
Mail list logo
