On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 3:12 PM wrote:
> ... pompous programmer asshole*.
I think you are projecting your own personality in your perception of
others (which is a natural thing to do - everyone does that to some
degree).
That said, I am going to filter your messages to my spam bucket from now
> > That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
> > collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
> > there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
> > the parts. The creation of works that "can be linked together"
> > is not protected by copyright:
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together
is not protected by copyright: the
> > What compels you to agree with an EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire
> lawful possession of the work.
What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed
to see the
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance,
> which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no
> contract, no exceptions.
False.
For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance,
which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no
contract, no exceptions.
False.
For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by
What compels you to agree with an EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire
lawful possession of the work.
What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed
to see the EULA?
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the
> agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before
> purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A
> EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have.
What compels you to agree with an EULA?
> In the few court cases that have directly addresses
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses
> a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No, I would not.
Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not
creative.
The
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership
> of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of
> Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise,
> you could
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership
of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of
Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise,
you could not
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses
a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No, I would not.
Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not
creative.
The
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A
EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have.
What compels you to agree with an EULA?
In the few court cases that have directly addresses
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the
agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before
purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
> bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware
> either.
This point is a controversial point. Different people make different
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright
> holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can
> cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't*
> mention
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you
> could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there
> is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you
> to withhold from
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you
could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there
is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you
to withhold from me.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright
holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can
cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't*
mention
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
This point is a controversial point. Different people make different
claims.
> > It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
> the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a one
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted
> in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can
> be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel.
I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted
in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can
be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel.
I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> I think we have a real problem, however, in cases where the source
> file that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice.
Sure: the GPL notice isn't completely valid. But I think people have
already decided that
> > Also, "mere aggregation" is a term from the GPL. You can read what
> > it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
> > a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
> > the program.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:20:50PM -0700, David Schwartz
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> If you believe the linker "merely aggregates" the object code for the
> driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
> that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
> you separate the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
If you believe the linker merely aggregates the object code for the
driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
you separate the
Also, mere aggregation is a term from the GPL. You can read what
it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
the program.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:20:50PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
I think we have a real problem, however, in cases where the source
file that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice.
Sure: the GPL notice isn't completely valid. But I think people have
already decided that
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
> >works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
> >separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
> >you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
Josselin Mouette wrote:
It merely depends on the definition of aggregation. I'd say that two
works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
On Tue,
Can anyone tell me about the viability of a guarantee_memory() syscall?
[I'm thinking: it would either kill the process, or allocate all virtual
memory needed for its shared libraries, buffers, allocated memory, etc.
Furthermore, it would render this process immune to the OOM killer,
unless it
Can anyone tell me about the viability of a guarantee_memory() syscall?
[I'm thinking: it would either kill the process, or allocate all virtual
memory needed for its shared libraries, buffers, allocated memory, etc.
Furthermore, it would render this process immune to the OOM killer,
unless it
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 07:01:32AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> Every Linux inetd in the world would instantly stop working.
Pointer to docs on why this is not considered a bug in inetd?
Also, you already know how to upgrade a syscall without breaking backwards
compatability.
> The behavior
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 07:01:32AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
Every Linux inetd in the world would instantly stop working.
Pointer to docs on why this is not considered a bug in inetd?
Also, you already know how to upgrade a syscall without breaking backwards
compatability.
The behavior
38 matches
Mail list logo
