Tilly
> Gesendet: Montag, 9. März 2015 21:45
> An: License Discuss
> Betreff: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and
> Open Source Licenses
>
> I will respond inline this time because the conversation got
> complicated.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9
I will respond inline this time because the conversation got complicated.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
> Many thanks for your detailed description. Indeed, I am sorry that we are
> reciprocally frustrated with us.
> But I do not want to give up. Let me first summarize
scuss
> Betreff: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and
> Open Source Licenses
>
> There is a significant problem with the abbreviated version that you
> wish I had said. I believe your analysis is wrong when you concluded
> that dynamic linking is en
Ooi [mailto:cinly@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 9:37 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; License Discuss
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open Source
Licenses
Dear Larry
I have no doubt about your legal expertise and experience, but I think
generally speak
There is a significant problem with the abbreviated version that you
wish I had said. I believe your analysis is wrong when you concluded
that dynamic linking is enough to escape the reverse engineering
provision. It would therefore be a lie for me to say something like,
"But indeed, this documen
. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu]
> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 8:29 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open
> Source Licenses
>
> Well, the provided text in the document does not appear to me to b
h?
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 8:29 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open
Source Licenses
Well, the provided text in the document does not appear t
Well, the provided text in the document does not appear to me to be
conclusive that permitting reverse engineering is not required from LGPL
users. There¹s interesting analysis of the wording but the real ³missing
step² for me would be that your analysis would actually hold up in a court
of law.
On 06/03/15 09:09, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
Why do I only say ‘very similar’ instead of ‘equal’. The problem with your
summary is this: you do not talk about the license text! Your term “combined
work” DOES NOT OCOUR in
The problem with your approach is that you do not talk about the spirit
o
Dear Mr. Tilly;
On a first glance, your mail seems to be clear an reasonable. Unfortunately you
are impeding the everyday work of those who want and must convince and support
their companies, employees and colleagues to use free software compliantly. Let
me explain, how your obstruction comes i
10 matches
Mail list logo
