Re: Intellectual Property II
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:50:56 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rui writes: >> That's almost all you get as far as your money is concerned. Then >> there's this license, that restricts your rights even more by forbidding >> private copying (install on no more than one computer at a time) > > US copyright law does not allow installation on more than one computer at a > time without permission of the copyright owner. What provision of US copyright law says this? I don't see such a limit in 17 USC 117. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Hey dak, have some fun. The gang at ifross in action. http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/ For English-only readers: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&trurl=http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/ - GPLv3 - Legislation in contract form [...] Penetration in danger? More serious the planned change of number 4 could affect itself. The present regulation in the GPL 2 plans that with an injury of the license obligations automatically all granted rights by the GPL are omitted, so that the GPL violator stands there as usual robbery copiers. This strict regulation, which worked already several times in Germany for the penetration of the GPL, is to be replaced by a right to give notice, which presupposes a previous notification of the violator. With the fact one would like to prevent that a user loses rights to use immediately with unintentional license injuries its. Background of this change is the view of the FSF that under US right of the changes to a GPL conformal use the GPL injury cannot heal, but the fact that each holder of a right must grant explicitly a new license to the violator - which with a multiplicity of authors is hardly feasible[6]. Under German right this opinion will not represent, so that a in this country attenuation of the license threatens. - Alarm! Alarm! Alarm! regards, alexander. Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > German GNUtian dak didn't answer "yes or no" question regarding > Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL > is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of > conditions subsequent. > > David Kastrup wrote: > > > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > > [...] > > >> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it > > > > > > Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? > > > > If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded > > without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they? > > http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf > > - > The defendant argued: The temporary injunction should be lifted > because the defendant is not liable to be sued. The plaintiff has > no right to sue him.. The defendant is not concerned with the > distribution and/or duplication and/or making public the software > !netfilter/iptables. He, the defendant, is a pure support company, > and is not concerned with selling, reproducing, or making available > the software. He has never undertaken these activities and will > not do so. It has previously been pointed out to the plaintiff that > selling, reproducing and making available software are not > undertaken by the defendant but by the company S[itecom] Europe BV. > Furthermore, there was a notification that the web site had already > been amended. It is obvious that the company [Sitecom] Europe BV > was to clarify the matter and the matter would be clarified by it. > There is therefore no reason to grant preliminary > remedies. > - > > regards, > alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
oaky wrote: [...] > A protocol exchange would qualify (in Moglen's world) as an example > of "exchanging complex internal data structures", like a GPL'd > daemon talking with a proprietary client app or vice-a-versa. Exactly. http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.022702/220582261 - BW2261 FEB 27,2002 7:10 PACIFIC 10:10 EASTERN ( BW)(MA-NUSPHERE) Preliminary Hearing Between NuSphere and MySQL AB Begins Today; NuSphere Responds to False Claims by the Free Software Foundation Business/Technology Editors BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 27, 2002--The Free Software Foundation (FSF) issued a press release yesterday inaccurately stating that NuSphere Corporation, an independent operating company of Progress Software Corporation, "lost the right to distribute MySQL software due to a violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL)." According to Lorne Cooper, president of NuSphere Corporation, these statements are inaccurate and inappropriate, as the case has yet to be presented in court. "The Free Software Foundation had no basis on which to issue this statement," said Cooper. "The dispute between NuSphere and MySQL AB originated from a trademark dispute. The initial court hearing takes place today in Boston Federal Court. We believe actions such as this press release by the FSF violate basic ethics regarding due process of law and can only harm the open source community by alarming commercial users of open software." The FSF contends that NuSphere violated the GPL by simply linking proprietary software to the MySQL system using a public API. MySQL AB is interpreting the GPL so broadly that any commercial software that comes into contact with free software must also become free, according to Cooper. By that standard, a commercial email program would violate the GPL if it downloaded mail from a GPL-compliant mail server, he says. NuSphere regards this as an extreme interpretation of the GPL and believes that MySQL AB's injunction against NuSphere is an inappropriate case by which to test the GPL in a court of law. The legal dispute between NuSphere Corporation and MySQL AB, which is a VC-backed organization that also develops, supports and markets MySQL, is about trademark rights that NuSphere purchased. MySQL AB raised GPL issues in its counter-suit. "Businesses may, in good faith, have disagreements over interpretation of contracts and in this case all that we seek is to have MySQL AB honor its contracts," said Cooper. "MySQL AB, however, decided to broaden our contractual dispute into a legal test case for the GPL. We disagree with that decision because there is no infringement of the GPL, and because this is counter to how the open source community operates." Visit the NuSphere website (www.nusphere.com) to view a letter that Cooper wrote to customers and the open source community and a PDF file of the original contract signed with MySQL AB in June 2000. For more information or comment from Lorne Cooper, please contact Sarah Johnson or Laura Ackerman at 781-684-0770 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note, Cooper will not be available during the hearing, which runs from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. EST. More information on NuSphere also is available at www.nusphere.com. --30--kc/bos* CONTACT: Sarah Johnson or Laura Ackerman Schwartz Communications, Inc. 781-684-0770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] KEYWORD: MASSACHUSETTS INDUSTRY KEYWORD: COMPUTERS/ELECTRONICS SOFTWARE SOURCE: NuSphere - See also http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf and http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/07/12/2142237 (NuSphere: MySQL.org needed because MySQL AB won't accept code) - Johnston says at the heart of the issue is a pending lawsuit in which the two companies are suing each other over their changing relationship and trademark issues. Neither side would talk in great detail about the pending lawsuits, but Johnston says NuSphere hasn't been allowed to participate in the existing community at MySQL AB's MySQL.com. "We tried to submit changes [to the MySQL code] under the GPL to that site, and they were refused on a commercial basis, not on a technical basis," Johnston adds. "The code works fine, and we ship it as part of our GPL version of MySQL ... but they are not available from MySQL.com, because they won't accept anything they don't own the copyright to." [...] MySQL AB's Mickos, on the phone from Finland, says the MySQL code, while being Open Source, has always been created almost entirely by project founders Michael "Monty" Widenius and David Axmark. "It has never been a 'bazaar' product like in The Cathedral and the Bazaar," Mickos says. "It's not a product everybody has contributed to, and that never was the intention. "Monty has never accepted code contributions from other people," Mickos adds. "If he has gotten something [from someone else], they have been
Re: Intellectual Property II
German GNUtian dak didn't answer "yes or no" question regarding Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of conditions subsequent. David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it > > > > Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? > > If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded > without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf - The defendant argued: The temporary injunction should be lifted because the defendant is not liable to be sued. The plaintiff has no right to sue him.. The defendant is not concerned with the distribution and/or duplication and/or making public the software !netfilter/iptables. He, the defendant, is a pure support company, and is not concerned with selling, reproducing, or making available the software. He has never undertaken these activities and will not do so. It has previously been pointed out to the plaintiff that selling, reproducing and making available software are not undertaken by the defendant but by the company S[itecom] Europe BV. Furthermore, there was a notification that the web site had already been amended. It is obvious that the company [Sitecom] Europe BV was to clarify the matter and the matter would be clarified by it. There is therefore no reason to grant preliminary remedies. - regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
