Re: License issue?
Joerg Schilling wrote: Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been reading the dvd+rw-tools FAQ and I have found this in there: === Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve Technology]. === As the program claims to use the GPL, such note would not be legal and commercial use cannot be limited to a single company. You may be right in Europe, in the USA if I hold the copyright I may grant several non-exclusive licenses under different terms. It's not even unusual. With commercial software I may sell a right to use quantity one to an end user, a site or company license to a large organization, and a right to duplicate and resell to another (if I trust them to pay royalties). And I might grant a free right to use to a charity if I was a nice person. Looks like you did not get my point: why should there be a need to use a non GPL variant? I can't get your point, only reply to what you said. If that's not your point then why write it? You said it would not be legal and commercial use could not be granted if there was GPL. You are incorrect in the USA. As you yourself explained about license in Germany, what you said recently is only part of what you said earlier, regarding ways to license and which were mutually exclusive. -- bill davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As you are on this list for a long time, I would expect that you know that a company was named only because this company did violate the GPL. The version of cdrecord shipped by named company was clearly marked as modified, only you would expect a command line application to pop up a window in everyone's face saying so. Incidentally, you're also the only one who thinks the GPL was violated in the first place. Does that tell you something? Looks like you have a strange understanding of clearly marked as modified. If you were true, people would have send their complaints to Suse and not to me. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been reading the dvd+rw-tools FAQ and I have found this in there: === Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve Technology]. === As the program claims to use the GPL, such note would not be legal and commercial use cannot be limited to a single company. You may be right in Europe, in the USA if I hold the copyright I may grant several non-exclusive licenses under different terms. It's not even unusual. With commercial software I may sell a right to use quantity one to an end user, a site or company license to a large organization, and a right to duplicate and resell to another (if I trust them to pay royalties). And I might grant a free right to use to a charity if I was a nice person. Looks like you did not get my point: why should there be a need to use a non GPL variant? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
Looks like you did not get my point: why should there be a need to use a non GPL variant? I can think of a simple reason: to grant rights which the GPL doesn't grant, in return for some cash for further development. There probably are other valid reasons too. [cdrecord license:] As you are on this list for a long time, I would expect that you know that a company was named only because this company did violate the GPL. The version of cdrecord shipped by named company was clearly marked as modified, only you would expect a command line application to pop up a window in everyone's face saying so. Incidentally, you're also the only one who thinks the GPL was violated in the first place. Does that tell you something? And I can't help but notice that you made a special license of your own software for someone while continuing to ask why should there be a need to use a non GPL variant?. Glass house, stones. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
Greg Wooledge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:43:59PM +0100, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: === Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve Technology]. === I am wondering how is it possible to this be compatible with the GPL license (which is the only license I have found on dvd+rw-tools-5.21.4.10.8/LICENSE file). The person who writes the software holds the copyright on it. The copyright holder may release the software to various people or organizations under as many licenses as he likes. True but irelevent: The source has already been published under GPL that allows a commercial distribution of derived binaries if you include source. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:41:20PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: Once you put some code under a OSI compliant license, you cannot give someone else exclusive rights anymore. That is not correct. The copyright holder can give the code to Microsoft and say, Here, use this in the next version of Windows any way you like. Microsoft will *not* be under the obligations of the GPL. However, if Microsoft takes the GPL-licensed version of the software and incorporates it into Windows, then they *would* have to comply with the terms of the GPL. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
Greg Wooledge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:41:20PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: Once you put some code under a OSI compliant license, you cannot give someone else exclusive rights anymore. That is not correct. The copyright holder can give the code to Microsoft and say, Here, use this in the next version of Windows any way you like. Microsoft will *not* be under the obligations of the GPL. Why would someone need such a special license? Only in order to make hidden changes. If there was any hope to get customers that are interested in hidden changes, I would expect a different text. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri 19 Aug 2005 00:32:53 NZST +1200, Joerg Schilling wrote: As the program claims to use the GPL, such note would not be legal and commercial use cannot be limited to a single company. Once you put some code under a OSI compliant license, you cannot give someone else exclusive rights anymore. How very interesting. I remember a certain Mr Schilling trying to restrict the rights to cdrecord away from the GPL for a certain named company. Trying to troll again? As you are on this list for a long time, I would expect that you know that a company was named only because this company did violate the GPL. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
Joerg Schilling wrote: Alvaro Lopez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I have been reading the dvd+rw-tools FAQ and I have found this in there: === Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve Technology]. === As the program claims to use the GPL, such note would not be legal and commercial use cannot be limited to a single company. You may be right in Europe, in the USA if I hold the copyright I may grant several non-exclusive licenses under different terms. It's not even unusual. With commercial software I may sell a right to use quantity one to an end user, a site or company license to a large organization, and a right to duplicate and resell to another (if I trust them to pay royalties). And I might grant a free right to use to a charity if I was a nice person. -- bill davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
Re: License issue?
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:43:59PM +0100, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: === Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve Technology]. === I am wondering how is it possible to this be compatible with the GPL license (which is the only license I have found on dvd+rw-tools-5.21.4.10.8/LICENSE file). The person who writes the software holds the copyright on it. The copyright holder may release the software to various people or organizations under as many licenses as he likes. So you might get it under the GPL, but Sun gets to use it under a different license. Nothing that Sun does with their licensed copy of the software will affect your rights under the GPL in any way. Likewise, none of the rights that you received under the GPL can be applied to the version that Sun has. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
Alvaro Lopez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I have been reading the dvd+rw-tools FAQ and I have found this in there: === Version 5.6 adds support for Solaris 2.x [commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris are to be settled with Inserve Technology]. === As the program claims to use the GPL, such note would not be legal and commercial use cannot be limited to a single company. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Andy (i guess) states on http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/solaris.com.html --- Clarification Note Commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris means that if a 3rd party would like to include dvd+rw-tools [or their components] as a part of commercial product for Solaris, then they have to talk to Inserve Technology. In other words Inserve Technology is granted exclusive right to include dvd+rw-tools in commercially available product for Solaris(tm). But no explicit permission/license is required, if a commercial [or any other] party chooses to download and deploy them internally in their Solaris environment, e.g. for internal backup purposes. If somebody would try to enforce this, he would be trying to break the GPL. Once you put some code under a OSI compliant license, you cannot give someone else exclusive rights anymore. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License issue?
Hi, Andy (i guess) states on http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/solaris.com.html --- Clarification Note Commercial licensing terms for distribution on Solaris means that if a 3rd party would like to include dvd+rw-tools [or their components] as a part of commercial product for Solaris, then they have to talk to Inserve Technology. In other words Inserve Technology is granted exclusive right to include dvd+rw-tools in commercially available product for Solaris(tm). But no explicit permission/license is required, if a commercial [or any other] party chooses to download and deploy them internally in their Solaris environment, e.g. for internal backup purposes. --- Although it would be interesting to see the outcome of a legal battle about a commercial GPL-conformant version of growisofs, i think we would thank Andy badly for his work, if we challenged his right to grant above exclusive license. If i would feel affected by that license i'd just keep dvd+rw-tools apart from my stuff and offer it under GPL for free for internal use. Then i'd charge money for enabling use of dvd+rw-tools via my proprietary product. (Nobody will pay, i fear.) This looks much like a judicial hot air balloon. Colorful, illuminated and hollow. If somebody manages to get rich by my BSD licensed work, i would appreciate a gratuity. Just for fairness. :)) Have a nice day :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
