> > 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:
David Schwartz wrote:
>>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
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:47 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
> > > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be
> > > > different.
> > >
> 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
David Schwartz wrote:
>> >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
>> >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
>
>
>>No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
>>non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a
>>collective work where the real
David Schwartz wrote:
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a
collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was
to
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:47 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be
different.
Sure, but in
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 literary
David Schwartz wrote:
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
This thread should probably get moved off-list soon, it's like
beating the dead horse long after its flesh has decayed and its
bones disintegrated to dust.
On Apr 13, 2005, at 21:54, David Schwartz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Yes, the GPL can give you
> 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?
If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do
> >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
> >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
> No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
> non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective
> work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select
>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
> > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be
> > > different.
> >
> > Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
> > under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
> > want from me? A
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, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
>
> > > Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
> > > upheld in the USA.
> > > If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
>
> >
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10:46 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
> In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson
> & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as
> Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000)
> is that the presence of a
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10:46 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson
Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as
Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000)
is that the presence of a
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
upheld in the USA.
If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
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, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
want from me? A promise I
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be
different.
Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a binary without
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective
work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select
what
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?
If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not
This thread should probably get moved off-list soon, it's like
beating the dead horse long after its flesh has decayed and its
bones disintegrated to dust.
On Apr 13, 2005, at 21:54, David Schwartz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Yes, the GPL can give you
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, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[snip]
> > A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later.
> Then he should give us the source.
[snip]
> The fact remains that those firmware blob have no licence, and thus defacto
> fall under the GPL.
>
> > Moreover, the
David Schwartz wrote:
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to
>>> agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If
>>> you were able to create the derivative work under first
>>> sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the
>>>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
> under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
> want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit
> in the
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
> > license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
> > the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
> > restrictions in the contract would not apply to
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work,
> > e.g. an image
> > of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you
> > distribute
> > that image freely?
>
> I would say that if not for the EULA, you could
> > > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
> > Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
> > upheld in the USA.
> > If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
> http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm
This wasn't a
> 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,
> >
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, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
>
> Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the
> USA.
> If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work,
> > > e.g. an image
> > > of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you
> > > distribute
> > > that image freely?
> > I would say that if not for the EULA,
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
David Schwartz wrote:
>>David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you buy a
>>W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an
>>image of your installation, under the fair use rights
>>(IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely?
>>
>
>I would say that if not for the EULA, you
> David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
> >>derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
> >>for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
> >>that is conditional on how
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are
David Schwartz wrote:
This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
restrictions in the contract would not apply to you.
The only way to
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
>>derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
>>for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
>>that is conditional on how the licensee
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
> it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
> FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing
> GPL as a license, so
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing
GPL as a license, so _thier_
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to
David Schwartz wrote:
This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
restrictions in the contract would not apply to you.
The only way to
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee
David Schwartz wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you buy a
W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an
image of your installation, under the fair use rights
(IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely?
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could
transfer
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, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work,
e.g. an image
of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you
distribute
that image freely?
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the
USA.
If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
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 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
The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
upheld in the USA.
If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm
This wasn't a copyright
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work,
e.g. an image
of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you
distribute
that image freely?
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer
David Schwartz wrote:
This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
restrictions in the contract would not apply to you.
The
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit
in the
David Schwartz wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to
agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If
you were able to create the derivative work under first
sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the
contract would not apply
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[snip]
A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later.
Then he should give us the source.
[snip]
The fact remains that those firmware blob have no licence, and thus defacto
fall under the GPL.
Moreover, the firmare in not
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 Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware.
D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually
(and clearly) there. It's the missing source case
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware.
> D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually
> (and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we're considering
> and the number
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 18:25 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
[...]
> > A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed);
> > B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A;
> > C - is another user, who got a copy
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
David Schwartz writes:
>>Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
>>derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
>>for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
>>that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to
> > 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.
> Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> [I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
> threading somehow.]
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
> are the
> > ones handling the
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
threading somehow.]
Sven Luther wrote:
> The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
are the
> ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the
> stake. If they feel that
Michael Poole wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not
Humberto Massa writes:
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
>> >> by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
>> >> work of your work and they
David Schwartz wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
>> by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
>> work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first
>>
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative
work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with "ld" is
completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm
not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative
work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with ld is
completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm
not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it
David Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first
place. See,
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't
Humberto Massa writes:
David Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
work of your work and they had no right to *make*
Michael Poole wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
threading somehow.]
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
are the
ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the
stake. If they feel that some
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
threading somehow.]
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
are the
ones handling the infrastructure,
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.
Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities
David Schwartz writes:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or
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 Mon, 2005-04-11 at 18:25 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
[...]
A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed);
B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A;
C - is another user, who got a copy indirectly,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware.
D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually
(and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we're considering
and the number of
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.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware.
D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually
(and clearly) there. It's the missing source case
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit
> > you to restrict
> > the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to
> > restrict the
> > distribution of lawfully created derivative works to
> > The GPL applies to distributing a Linux binary I just made even
> > though nobody ever chose to apply the GPL to the binary I just made
> > only because the binary I just made is a derivative work of the
> > Linux kernel, and the authors of that work chose to apply the GPL to
> > it.
> How
1 - 100 of 393 matches
Mail list logo
