BSD Protector writes:
With all due respect, this mailing list is called:
license-discuss.
1. GPL is a license.
2. It is being discussed.
3. It is not a license under consideration for approval by OSI.
Therefore ... it is off-topic for this mailing list.
--
--My blog is at
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Can we stop these posts already?
About 280KB worth of e-mail has now be exchanged in discussing this
topic, including the 'amusing' spin-off discussions.
It's certainly an important topic, if for no other reason
Thanks.
I wasn't actually expecting an answer. I was just
thinking outloud after I've read a lot of the such
and such preempts the GPL stuff.
What I've concluded after reading the Copyright Act is
that:
1. The Act explicitly establishes the concept of
licensing, completely independently of any
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, John Cowan wrote:
Brendan Hide scripsit:
The first two books I pick up from the shelves:
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, reads:
(c) Oxford University Press 1999
Database right Oxford University Press (makers)
First published 1999
All rights reserved. No
See below. I should have made some extra things clear.
David Johnson wrote:
On Thursday 31 October 2002 07:42 am, Brendan Hide wrote:
You have the right to do *anything* with a copyrighted work only if you
have agreed and complied with (and read) the license.
Added emphasis I didn't mean
(For a few days, I had some hardware problem and could not access the
net. Hence, I could not reply earlier. The original came to me off
the list, but since the list appears to be very much interested, I am
posting the reply to the list also.)
Sujita Purushothaman wrote:
You are way off
Brendan Hide scripsit:
The first two books I pick up from the shelves:
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, reads:
(c) Oxford University Press 1999
Database right Oxford University Press (makers)
First published 1999
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
On Friday 01 November 2002 12:32 am, Brendan Hide wrote:
Cryptography in C and C++ reads:
Copyright (c)2001 by Michael Welschenbach
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying,
John Cowan wrote:
You insist that you can own something 100% and relinquish 100%
control at the same time. There is not a single legal precedent
for this anywhere.
Tell it to the FSF Marines.
What GPL does is to relinquish control over *redistribution* of the
material not the material
: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:33 AM
To: Ken Brown
Cc: Brendan Hide; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright
Ken Brown wrote:
FSF has bullied a couple of developers, but hasn't had a judge rule
in their favor yet. When they win in a court of law, I'll open my
mind to their sales pitch a little more
Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL advocates want the GPL to become the king of all free software licenses.
And if wants to be the king, it will have to go through the fire of legal
review in a court.
Not really. The GPL relies more on public opinion than it does on the
force of law.
On Thursday 31 October 2002 07:42 am, Brendan Hide wrote:
You have the right to do anything with a copyrighted work only if you
have agreed and complied with (and read) the license.
Bull pucky! The vast majority of copyrighted works don't even have licenses.
Reaching my hand over about two
Ken Brown wrote:
Ex: I own a piece of property...but at anytime, anybody in the General
Public can use it, dig it up, change it, etc. How can you say I have
ownership of the property?
I know you've already given up - but just answer the questions below.
If I build a jungle-gym in my front
Brendan Hide r sez:
If I build a jungle-gym in my front yard and tell the neighbourhood that
their children can all use it - whose is it? If I also say that the
parents can make additions to it to make it safer or more exciting -
who is the owner after they've made these changes?
As was
-Original Message-
From: Brendan Hide [mailto:brendan;sacm.co.za]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 4:06 AM
To: Ken Brown; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright
Ken Brown wrote:
Ex: I own a piece of property...but at anytime, anybody in the General
Public can use it, dig it up, change it, etc
Ken Brown scripsit:
John Cowan et. al
are trying to sell you that if you or any other software developer
distribute your work under the terms of the GPL, you will be able to take a
user to court for distributing or modifying your work in a manner that you
disagree with.
Sure you will.
, 2002 4:06 AM
To: Ken Brown; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright
Ken Brown wrote:
Ex: I own a piece of property...but at anytime, anybody in the General
Public can use it, dig it up, change it, etc. How can you say I have
ownership of the property?
I know you've already given up
It's called the GPL because it assigns certain rights to everyone, not because
it makes everyone (or some abstract entity called the general public)
the owner.
Legally, a GPL-covered work is copyrighted and has certain copyright
holders. For certain purposes, it makes a difference
Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: Copyright
It's called the GPL because it assigns certain rights to everyone, not
because
it makes everyone
John Cowan wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
You own a copy of the software under a license from the copyright and
patent holders.
Why the horror quotes? Ownership is not absolute _alodium_, right enough,
but subject to the copyright owner's enumerated interests, ownership
of a
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
From: Graham Bassett [EMAIL PROTECTED],
There is authority to show that, at least by analogy, equity could
allow such specific performance. Multiple developers could be joined
in an action or the open community or communities who have overseen
the
Sujita Purushothaman wrote:
Hello,
Are discussions on the GPL allowed? :-)
I'd like to ask, when A writes a program and distributes it under the
GPL, and B modifies it :
1. Is B allowed to remove all traces of A's name? Is B supposed to retain
A's name somewhere? For example if I were
Sujita,
This is a great question. I look forward to the group's response on this
one.
Ken Brown
AdTI
- Original Message -
From: Sujita Purushothaman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:35 AM
Subject: Copyright
Hello,
Are discussions on the
This is a great question. I look forward to the group's response on this
one.
This is an off topic question, as the GPL has already been accepted.
In Europe, I believe this would normally be covered by moral rights.
However, the Red Hat licence attempts to require that you remove all
Sujita Purushothaman scripsit:
I'd like to ask, when A writes a program and distributes it under the
GPL, and B modifies it :
1. Is B allowed to remove all traces of A's name? Is B supposed to retain
A's name somewhere?
It is customary for the copyright notice to include the author's
Ken Brown scripsit:
Ok John...I give up.
You just beat me to it.
You insist that you can own something 100% and
relinquish 100% control at the same time. There is not a single legal
precedent for this anywhere.
Tell it to the FSF Marines.
So you and I will just have to disagree. You
. Particularly when the license has such vague restrictions
for derivative works.
kb
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan;reutershealth.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:01 PM
To: Ken Brown
Cc: John Cowan; Sujita Purushothaman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright
Ken
Sujitha,
You are way off topic here. This list is not for discussing things
like can I do 'x' if not, 'y' under license 'A' . Such questions
are, ideally decided on advice from lawyers.
Confining myself to GPL, you cannot do what you proposed to do - under
any license - not even the GPL.
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
You own a copy of the software under a license from the copyright and
patent holders.
Why the horror quotes? Ownership is not absolute _alodium_, right enough,
but subject to the copyright owner's enumerated interests, ownership
of a lawful copy looks to me much
Roblimo wrote:
Do you own all the software on your computer? I own all the
software on
mine. :)
You own a copy of the software under a license from the copyright and
patent holders. You may be restricted from doing certain things with
your property by law or by contract. This is as true of
Wendy Seltzer scripsit:
[admirable summary snipped]
Unless an owner dedicates a work to the public domain, releasing all
exclusivity,
One small point, not really relevant to the rest of your posting. There
are people on this list who argue that you can't do that under the existing
ownership of the property?
kb
-Original Message-
From: Humphreys, Noel [mailto:nhumphreys;AkinGump.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:38 PM
To: 'Ken Brown'; John Cowan; Sujita Purushothaman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Copyright
Ken,
The GPL is designed to facilitate access
Ken Brown scripsit:
Lets deal with this one at a time. My first question is this-who does the
code belong to once it is GPL'ed? What entity, person, group, troll,
whoever owns the code?
The question is not well formed.
Code, or any other textual work, is not owned in the same unitary way
Ken Brown scripsit:
Thanks for your reply. Let me be clear. There is a big difference between
saying that I have a copyright, which is intellectual property ...with
legal enforceable rights, and saying that I have a copyright but I choose
not to enforce it vs. I have a copyright, but I
To: Ken Brown
Cc: John Cowan; Sujita Purushothaman; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright
Ken Brown scripsit:
This answer is duplicitous.
I take offense at the application of this term to me.
duplicity: the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or
action
.
Noel D. Humphreys
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://radio.weblogs.com/0114730/
-Original Message-
From: Ken Brown [mailto:kenbrown;erols.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:42 PM
To: John Cowan; Sujita Purushothaman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Copyright
This answer is duplicitous
modifications, and distribute my own version, can I remove all instances of
RedHat ? 2. If I am allowed to, to what extent?
The OSD allows licenses to prohibit that. Some jurisdictions
may prohibit it.
As John Cowan noted separately, trademark law can require
the removal of trademarks.
At 03:03 PM 10/24/02 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Wendy Seltzer scripsit:
Unless an owner dedicates a work to the public domain, releasing all
exclusivity,
One small point, not really relevant to the rest of your posting. There
are people on this list who argue that you can't do that under the
Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
The copyright notice (thus author names) are normally covered
by copyright law. IANAL, but I think you cannot modify the
credits (or better, you cannot remove credits), indipendent
of licenses!
Removing credits is governed by the license. Most licenses are silent
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Copyright
Ken,
The GPL is designed to facilitate access, not to discourage ownership.
Someone owns the property, and that someone is not the person who
downloads the source code. GPL-subject software permits wide access and
retransmission, because the GPL permits it, not because
-Original Message-
From: Forrest J Cavalier III [mailto:forrest;mibsoftware.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright
modifications, and distribute my own version, can I remove all
instances of RedHat
or not, explain to me how I could possibly
forbid anyone from making the change?
kb
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan;reutershealth.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:16 PM
To: Ken Brown
Cc: John Cowan; Sujita Purushothaman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright
Ken
Ken Brown scripsit:
Ownership is control to me. Courts would agree. If you waive your
ownership, you waive your control...vice versa.
No, you don't. Ownership is the right to exercise control, not the
duty to do so. If you waive control, you waive it.
Copyright is control
whether you
Lets deal with this one at a time. My first question is this-who does the
code belong to once it is GPL'ed? What entity, person, group, troll,
whoever owns the code?
If I buy a GPL program, I own it. It is mine. I can install it on any
computer I own. I can also sell you a copy if you're
Ken Brown scripsit:
This answer is duplicitous.
I take offense at the application of this term to me.
duplicity: the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action
(m-w.com)
I think Sujita has a point. One of the central
purposes of the GPL is to discourage
...with our without credit to any commercial or private
entity.
kb
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan;reutershealth.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Sujita Purushothaman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright
Sujita Purushothaman scripsit:
I'd like
John Cowan wrote:
snip
The GNU GPL (clause 1) explicitly says:
# 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
# code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
# and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
# and
Sujita Purushothaman wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Qn : Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs
assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on a
GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how?
ok, I think I missed the 'FSF-copyrighted programs' part.
That
Sujita Purushothaman scripsit:
ok, I think I missed the 'FSF-copyrighted programs' part.
That means this question is not talking about all programs
under the GPL. but programs under the GPL copyrighted by FSF.
So, copyright notices cannot be removed, so the author's name
is still
Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The inherent standard in court for copyright is ownership and control. The
GPL negates your individual permissions. In addition, you revoke all rights
to control distribution. Sure you can say that there is a copyright, but to
me its like claiming
Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lets deal with this one at a time. My first question is this-who does the
code belong to once it is GPL'ed? What entity, person, group, troll,
whoever owns the code?
It belongs to the copyright holder.
I've written free software myself. I own the
Ken Brown scripsit:
The inherent standard in court for copyright is ownership and control. The
GPL negates your individual permissions. In addition, you revoke all rights
to control distribution. Sure you can say that there is a copyright, but to
me its like claiming ownership of air. Read
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:08:08PM -0500, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
For better or worse, the GPL is a document copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation and they have not granted permission to make
derivative works.
I have my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a newcomer.Could tell me what the DMCA is?
good grief. your search engine must have flooded
its carbeurator. cause mine came up with a bazillion
hits with just 'dmca'. (yes, exactly 1 bazillion hits,
no more, no less.) ;)
but to give you a jump start, I think the
On Monday 10 September 2001 10:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many thanks for seeing what I was trying to say. When I heards of this open
source movement I was intrigued to see how they could do what they do
without intellectual property protection, a institution that they attack so
much.
I don't pretend to fully understand your 'movement'. I konw the principle
behind copytleft: it is a means to an end. But as I understand it, within
your belief that everyone is free to copy software, there are restrictions on
further use and a flat fee is payable. Am I misguided. You do not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can I ensure that I get e-mailed further discussions on this list?
JEETUN6,
You can subscribe to this list by sending an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are archives of this list somewhere (a link has been published on
the list -- I know -- that doesn't help
It's common practice to quote part of the e-mail to which you are
replying, as I am doing here, in order to maintain some context in the
conversation.
It is also polite to set your mailer to not send HTML mail to a
mailing list such as this one.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many thanks for
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 03:54:51PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that there has been some discussion and assertion about the powers
bestowed by copyright. The focus has been on what it apparently allows the
owner to prevent 'legitimate' users to do. I do not know which jurisdiction
Who on this list beside myself wondered whether Praveen posted his message
on this list without consideration of why most of us support open source?
Or, did I miss something?
Rod
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001
On Monday 10 September 2001 07:13 pm, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Who on this list beside myself wondered whether Praveen posted his message
on this list without consideration of why most of us support open source?
Or, did I miss something?
Yes, you did miss something.
That particular set
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: copyright discussion
On Monday 10 September 2001 07:13 pm, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Who on this list beside myself wondered whether Praveen posted
his message
on this list without consideration of why most of us support
open source?
Or, did I miss something?
Yes
I don't pretend to fully understand your 'movement'. I konw the principle
behind copytleft: it is a means to an end. But as I understand it, within
your belief that everyone is free to copy software, there are restrictions on
further use and a flat fee is payable. Am I misguided. You do not
Many thanks for seeing what I was trying to say. When I heards of this open
source movement I was intrigued to see how they could do what they do without
intellectual property protection, a institution that they attack so much. How
much of a surprise then was it to discover that they actually
[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 license.
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 longer
-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 holder, you are
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: 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 better as well, I
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 what is
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 the
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
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-
From
From the "Just Had to Make a Correction Department (JHMCD)":
I don't know of a single distribution that asserts a compilation copyright,
though. It would annoy too many people.
Err, wrong on both counts. Red Hat Linux has a compilation copyright
that doesn't annoy people. Here is the top
Copyright laws apply to the actual source code (and thus binary) of the
software because it is a literary work, see the test below. If I set on
the task of writing a spreadsheet and end up with Excel, what are the
chances that I was copying Excel one for one?
On the other hand, I might write it
. +1-425-793-0283
http://www.infonuovo.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex
Nicolaou
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 23:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Alex Nicolaou; Bruce Perens; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright
Alex,
Here are two references that may be useful to you:
Hoffman, Gary B. Who Owns Genealogy: Cousins and Copyright. published on
the web at
http://www.genealogy.com/genealogy/14_cpyrt.html.
Genealogy.com (Fremont, CA: 1997) Straightforward treatment of copyright
basics and an useful links to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here are two references that may be useful to you:
http://www.genealogy.com/genealogy/14_cpyrt.html.
This was new to me, thanks.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html.
This I have already read, but I reread it.
Something I find easy to forget in these
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Nicolaou
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 17:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Alex Nicolaou; Bruce Perens; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Copyright of Facts
[ ... ]
The real area of confusion
79 matches
Mail list logo
