[Humberto Massa]
It had equated the two of them in the first part of the phrase.
[Raul Miller]
The GPL did not use the word equals.
Neither that is to say nor namely are equal to equals.
Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic
distinctions as claiming that
[Raul Miller]
However, I can present my point of view without resorting to this argument:
...
Does that make sense?
Much clearer, thanks. I was annoyed by the increasingly fine
hair-splitting - thanks for bringing the level back to the realm of the
meaningful.
signature.asc
Description:
On 5/11/05, Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL did not use the word equals.
Neither that is to say nor namely are equal to equals.
Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic
distinctions as claiming that that is to say does not connote
equivalency?
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[an argument, much of which would make sense in a parallel universe
where the GPL is on the law books as 17 USC 666]
I am not a lawyer (or a fortiori a judge), so all that I can do to
explain why this isn't valid legal reasoning is to point you at
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I'm not going to say that your point of view isn't perfectly valid
as your own point of view; but I don't have any reason to believe that
it's a good predictor of how a court case involving the FSF suing
FooSoft for linking against GNU
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in
terms of the law that is actually applicable, not as if the court were
obliged to construe the GPL so that every word
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, a court case does not have to be argued that way.
No, but if it's to have a prayer of winning, it has to be argued in
terms of the law that is actually applicable, not as if the
Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm disputing an argument which seems to require a number of such fine points.
It is difficult for me to raise such disputes without mentioning the the
points
themselves.
However, I
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fine. I have been goaded into rebutting this specimen.
Most of this is focused on contract law issues. I've written a
separate post suggesting the obvious alternative (Tort law)
Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license to
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that a work based on the Program is a derivative work under
copyright law, and then says that is to say, a work
containing..., which is NOT a re-statement of a
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
That's another re-statement of what a work based on the Program
means.
The GPL just equated the two, before the colon! It states, clearly, that
the a work based on the program is a derivative work under copyright
law,
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define work based on the
Program in terms of derivative work under copyright law, and
then, after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what
is a derivative work under
Batist Paklons wrote:
This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
that a work based on the Program is a derivative work under
copyright law, and then says that is to say, a work
containing..., which is NOT a re-statement of a derivative work
I haven't replied in detail to Batist yet because I am still digesting
the hash that Babelfish makes out of his Dutch article. And I don't
entirely agree that the GPL is horribly drafted, by comparison with
the kind of dog's breakfast that is the typical license contract. In
the past, I have
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:25:46PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Batist, I think you are mistaken about the meaning of the any later
version copyright license... the terms are precisely '' This program is
free software; you can
On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
contract, one is entitled to contract-law standards of the
reasonableness of one's attempts to cure a breach when notified. The
automatic termination clause
[Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
contract, one is entitled to
On 5/7/05, Batist Paklons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
It's really cool to have an actual lawyer weigh in, even if TINLAIAJ. :-)
On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this sorry-ness is not
something that matters
Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, it tries to define work based on the Program in terms
of derivative work under copyright law, and then incorrectly
paraphrases that definition.
It's probably worth noting that derivative work and work based on
the Program are spelled differently. What's not
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument,
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
??? Let's try again:
All of this discussion of legal minutia misses (and perhaps supports)
what, to my mind, is the most compelling argument for accepting the
FSF's position on the subject. The fact is that the question does
depend on a lot of legal
On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of this discussion of legal minutia misses (and perhaps supports)
what, to my mind, is the most compelling argument for accepting the
FSF's position on the subject. The fact is that the question does
depend on a lot of legal minutia that
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
The GPL simply defers to copyright law to define derivative
On 5/6/05, Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
??? Let's try again: '' The GPL tries to define work based on the
Program in terms of derivative work under copyright law, and then,
after this definition and a colon, it tries to explain what is a
derivative work under copyright law, but
linking GPL
against non-GPL, trigger the automatic termation provision
immediately and retrospectively due to any of a zillion inadvertent
build bugs in the past decade, and lead to the Death Of Debian (TM).
But it wouldn't have any effect on what license terms I or any Debian
user or derivative would
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You may not be qualified (as I am not) to offer legal advice. But
you're certainly qualified to have an opinion.
Sure. But it's not relevant to this discussion -- despite what many of
the participants seem to believe.
And there isn't
On 5/6/05, Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You may not be qualified (as I am not) to offer legal advice. But
you're certainly qualified to have an opinion.
Sure. But it's not relevant to this discussion -- despite what many of
the
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Second sentence in Section 0: The Program, below, refers to any
such program or work, and a work based on the Program
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you're objecting to the that is to say phrase, which restates
what
work based on the Program: means.
Attempts to,
I don't, except insofar as C - the Program attempts to paraphrase E
- the Program (= D).
Oh for Pete's sake, (E - the Program) (= D). What a great place for
a word wrap.
- Michael
On 5/4/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this. But that's where
this discussion is actually happening now, and I'm afraid I
33 matches
Mail list logo
