case. A is one or two well identified subjects.
And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence
A chose. A placed the copyright notice.
This is where i would need legal counsel, as to whether this means C or
someone else may stop you from distributing unless you provide
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
, as is the rest
of
the driver code.
This is fine with me. It is the existance of legal threats versus
debian I don't agree upon.
Notice that debian can't afford to be sued even if they are right, so ...
Yes, but it does not apply to our case here. There's no all other
copyright holders
was to select
what goes into the collective.
Wouldn't you agree that this is the normal form of use of a
library? And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal
use of a work you have legally acquired?
Yes. And yes, if you buy a copy of the library, yes (but
notice: not if you downloaded it for free
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
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.
involved. We're talking
about the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects.
And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence
A chose. A placed the copyright notice.
The licence is a matter between A and D. A may sue D and D may (less
likely) sue A, if condit
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
between D and C. There's no way C can enforce
anything on D (well, not on GPL basis).
> Notice also the fact that there are so many contributors to the linux kernel
> in effect means that there is nobody with the full rights as A, but only a
> multitude of people in the D case.
In this case,
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
to
distribute the software under the GPL to C. Now, D is only allowed to do this
distribution if he also distribute the source code of it, which he can't do
for the firmware.
Notice also the fact that there are so many contributors to the linux kernel
in effect means that there is nobody with 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
, but on redistribution, and the act of
D distributing the copy to C is covered by it. In a sense A allows D to
distribute the software under the GPL to C. Now, D is only allowed to do this
distribution if he also distribute the source code of it, which he can't do
for the firmware.
Notice also the fact
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
from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. ...
The wording is clear, the license is between A and C.
There's no license between D and C. There's no way C can enforce
anything on D (well, not on GPL basis).
Notice also the fact
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.
the firmware case. A is one or two well identified subjects.
And A wrote it is GPL'ed. Whether you agree or not, that's the licence
A chose. A placed the copyright notice.
The licence is a matter between A and D. A may sue D and D may (less
likely) sue A, if conditions are not met. I'm not sure at all
> 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
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 licensees of the
>
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains
>> part of the original author's copyrighted work and therefore can only
>> legally be copied with the permission of the author.
> The way you stop someone from
> 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,
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 hardware
either.
--
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 hardware
either.
--
Giuseppe
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, for
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains
part of the original author's copyrighted work and therefore can only
legally be copied with the permission of the author.
The way you stop someone from distributing part of
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 licensees of the
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 can the
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 licensees of the
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and
David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply):
> > >> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> > >> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> >
> Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> >> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> >> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
> >> point is that
> > 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
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
>> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
>> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
>> point is that distribution of the
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
point is that distribution of the linked
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
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
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
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
point is that distribution of the linked
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and
David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply):
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and
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
> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
> point is that distribution of the linked _result_ is nevertheless
> subject to the
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>> GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
>
> Assuming you have an online connection and a
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
> > enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
>
> How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > > but
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > but to a court.
>
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > > firmwares in
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >...
> > > > If your statement was
ible for copyright protection.
Copyright protection is not granted or denied because of functionality.
The functional issues are relevant only because they're written into
the license.
Of course there can be other GPL issues (e.g. it's bad to put a GPL
notice on something which isn't GPLed).
A
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:08 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
> >patents.
You have lots of "possible legal problems" of any kind. Basically
everyone can sue you for (almost) whatever he wants almost all ofth
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither
On Fri, 8 April 2005 09:22:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>
> > As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part
> > of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without
> > problems for the
Hi,
Humberto Massa wrote:
> First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
> making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
> instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
> possible.
>From section 3 of the GNU GPL, version 2:
ance is that the kernel proper
> and the binary firmware are "merely aggregated" in a volume of storage (
> ie. system memory).
The problem is that you can only argue it is mere agregation, if the copyright
notice doesn't de-facto put said firmware blobs under the GPL,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
> > Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to
> > where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its
> > initialization, without
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
> to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
> from the copyright holder saying "this, to me, is the
> preferred form for modification of the firmware
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [quoting me]
>
> >> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
> >> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
> >> than in the
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
> > this is not that tricky at all, and that the "mere
> > aggregation" clause applies to the combination, for various
>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
> >Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> >>You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> >>nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
>
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:55:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > 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
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
> > the kernel.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >...
> > > If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
> > > legal risks than
And it is done often enough when
> an assembler will not cooperate, and generate the correct instruction.
But again, this is not the common assumption, so if this is so, they should
write it down black on white in the copyright notice, and everyone would be
happy.
> Without evidence that
if this is so, they should
write it down black on white in the copyright notice, and everyone would be
happy.
Without evidence that we don't have the preferred form of the software
for making modifications I don't see how you can complain.
No, it goes the other way around. Without evidence that all
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
legal risks than commercial
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:55:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
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
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
this is not that tricky at all, and that the mere
aggregation clause applies to the combination, for various
reasons,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
from the copyright holder saying this, to me, is the
preferred form for modification of the firmware and
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[quoting me]
No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
than in the situation that the
501 - 600 of 862 matches
Mail list logo
