All love enhancers on one portal!
___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
John Hasler wrote: [...] > I think you might get away with literally doing that without infringing the > copyright[1] with actual pieces of paper. However, their is no equivalent > for machine-readable media (except perhaps paper tape or punched > cards). It's also so impractical as to be moot. Can you grasp the idea that one can *save* downloads (lawful electronic distribution) of "computer program" literary works on whatever machine-readable media, and even include multiple works on the same material object like HDD, diskette, or CD, and even aggregate multiple works in one single archive, compressed folder, "executable", or whatnot conglomerate of multiple works), all without infringing anyones copyright? > > [1] There might be a problem with the exclusive right to create > derivatives. http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
David Kastrup writes: > And if you think you can circumvent the reprinting permission by taking > hold of a few cubic feet of actual copies, then cutting and pasting from > them by a mechanical process, I very much doubt that the nominal > possession of the physical copies will save you from having to obtain the > copyright holders' permission for the resulting publication. I think you might get away with literally doing that without infringing the copyright[1] with actual pieces of paper. However, their is no equivalent for machine-readable media (except perhaps paper tape or punched cards). It's also so impractical as to be moot. [1] There might be a problem with the exclusive right to create derivatives. There is also the problem of taking hundreds of copies when the distributor clearly intended one copy per customer, but that's not related to copyright. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: inhouse forking?
John Hasler wrote: [...] > No. In fact, you don't have to make your changes public even if you do > sell it: you just have to provide the to your customers. Are you GNUtian or not, Hasler? If yes, you should urgently take the FSF's license-quiz http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi (Q6). Well, I'm just curious what's your total "license-quiz" score... care to share? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] > SmartDownload could be analogized to a free neighborhood newspaper, > readily obtained from a sidewalk box or supermarket counter without > any exchange with a seller or vender. It is there for the taking. I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak continues to exhibit strong symptoms of incurable cluelessness (typical among GNUtians). Well, for the sake of any possible benefit to anyone else, here's some clue: http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: inhouse forking?
Thank you! ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: inhouse forking?
fogelsharp writes: > If I download a software (source code, for example linux) licensed under > GPL and I change some code (for example because I dislike something) but > do not plan to sell or distribute it: I just want to use my changes on my > computer: Do I have to make my changes public anyway? No. In fact, you don't have to make your changes public even if you do sell it: you just have to provide the to your customers. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: inhouse forking?
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > fogelsharp wrote: > [...] >> > Google for "GPL FAQ", I think this is covered. >> >> Thank you very much! I'll read the FAQ! > > Read also Michael K. Edwards' 50+ pages of utter devastation (legal) > to the GPL FAQ. Which will become relevant if you use software copyrighted by Mr Edwards and licensed under the GPL, or if Mr Edwards agrees to pay all damages should you lose in court after heeding his advice. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > [...] >> Gifts > > I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak (still***) seems to be unaware that > "attached conditions" for downloads (I mean electronic distribution) > become binding only via affirmative action on part of recipient. > Territorial hints aside for a moment, he might (finally) want to read > Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. > > http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF > > > > unlike the user of Netscape Navigator or other click-wrap or shrink- > wrap licensees, the individual obtaining SmartDownload is not made > aware that he is entering into a contract. SmartDownload is available > from Netscape's web site free of charge. Before downloading the > software, the user need not view any license agreement terms or even > any reference to a license agreement, and need not do anything to > manifest assent to such a license agreement other than actually > taking possession of the product. From the user's vantage point, > SmartDownload could be analogized to a free neighborhood newspaper, > readily obtained from a sidewalk box or supermarket counter without > any exchange with a seller or vender. It is there for the taking. The newspaper is, but not its contents. You may not take parts of it and reprint and reproduce them. And if you think you can circumvent the reprinting permission by taking hold of a few cubic feet of actual copies, then cutting and pasting from them by a mechanical process, I very much doubt that the nominal possession of the physical copies will save you from having to obtain the copyright holders' permission for the resulting publication. There is a reason that the law is not interpreted by computers, but by humans. Circumvention sounds like a good idea until you get a judge annoyed. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: inhouse forking?
fogelsharp wrote: [...] > > Google for "GPL FAQ", I think this is covered. > > Thank you very much! I'll read the FAQ! Read also Michael K. Edwards' 50+ pages of utter devastation (legal) to the GPL FAQ. Drop a note to M.K.Edwards at gmail.com at ask for a copy of "Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?" regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] > Gifts I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak (still***) seems to be unaware that "attached conditions" for downloads (I mean electronic distribution) become binding only via affirmative action on part of recipient. Territorial hints aside for a moment, he might (finally) want to read Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF unlike the user of Netscape Navigator or other click-wrap or shrink- wrap licensees, the individual obtaining SmartDownload is not made aware that he is entering into a contract. SmartDownload is available from Netscape's web site free of charge. Before downloading the software, the user need not view any license agreement terms or even any reference to a license agreement, and need not do anything to manifest assent to such a license agreement other than actually taking possession of the product. From the user's vantage point, SmartDownload could be analogized to a free neighborhood newspaper, readily obtained from a sidewalk box or supermarket counter without any exchange with a seller or vender. It is there for the taking. [...] Unlike most of his fellow Plaintiffs, Michael Fagan alleges that he obtained SmartDownload from a shareware web site established and managed by a third party. Defendants dispute Fagan's allegations, insisting that the record shows that he must have obtained SmartDownload from Netscape's web site in the same manner as the other Plaintiffs discussed above. I need not resolve this factual dispute. If Fagan in fact obtained SmartDownload from the Netscape site, his claims are equally subject to my earlier analysis. If, however, Fagan's version of events is accurate, his argument against arbitration is stronger than that of the other Plaintiffs. While Netscape's download page for SmartDownload contains a single brief and ambiguous reference to the License Agreement, with a link to the text of the agreement, the ZDNet site15 contains not even such a reference. The site visitor is invited to click on a hypertext link to "more information" about SmartDownload. The link leads to a Netscape web page, which in turn contains a link to the License Agreement. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Fagan obtained SmartDownload from ZDNet, he was even less likely than the other Plaintiffs to be aware that he was entering into a contract or what its terms might be, and even less likely to have assented to be bound by the License Agreement and its arbitration clause. Therefore, Plaintiff Michael Fagan cannot be compelled ***) http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: inhouse forking?
David Kastrup wrote: > "fogelsharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I do have a basic question about the GPL: If I download a software > > (source code, for example linux) licensed under GPL and I change some > > code (for example because I dislike something) but do not plan to sell > > or distribute it: I just want to use my changes on my computer: Do I > > have to make my changes public anyway? > > No. > > Google for "GPL FAQ", I think this is covered. Thank you very much! I'll read the FAQ! > > -- > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: inhouse forking?
"fogelsharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I do have a basic question about the GPL: If I download a software > (source code, for example linux) licensed under GPL and I change some > code (for example because I dislike something) but do not plan to sell > or distribute it: I just want to use my changes on my computer: Do I > have to make my changes public anyway? No. Google for "GPL FAQ", I think this is covered. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: inhouse forking?
You only have to distribute the changes to the people who recive a compiled version of your program. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
inhouse forking?
Dear community I do have a basic question about the GPL: If I download a software (source code, for example linux) licensed under GPL and I change some code (for example because I dislike something) but do not plan to sell or distribute it: I just want to use my changes on my computer: Do I have to make my changes public anyway? Although I think nobody would ever like my changes? Thank you very much! \\fogelsharp ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
