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 DLL, or (2)
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
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
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-cgi?3
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 interface
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 license
or
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 being
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
That said, and after some reflection, I would now argue that the trivial
conversion of a static link into a dynamic link or API interface, simply
to get around the provisions of the GPL, won't work. The court would
hear from a parade of experts who would explain
[This is a new thread from Re: OSD modification regarding what license
can require of user. The previous thread was dealing with server
applications. I'm not trying to stop the previous thread, which is
interesting for other reasons. As time permits I intend to chime in on
that too.]
Emiliano
Emiliano writes:
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 admittedly limited
(Huge To: line deleted. Feel free to repost if you want.)
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
That said, and after some reflection, I would now argue that the trivial
conversion of a static link into a dynamic link or API interface, simply
to get around the provisions of the GPL,
11 matches
Mail list logo
