Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Nonsense. It protects both Sun and the contributor from being dragged > > to arbitrary third locations to defend themselves. > > Dragged by whom? USA is as arbitrary third location from my point of > view. The whole USA, not just California. And I certainly don't want to > be dragged in any USA court. I have nothing against them, but, you know, > there are people who just don't live in the USA. No kidding. Snide remarks aside, I think you're still misunderstanding, and I can't tell why that might be. I said "third location" because I meant it. Here's a better description of the problem than I can muster, and from an actual lawyer (no less): http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue > > But, again, if you don't understand the language there (legalese is > > indeed dense stuff), you're best off getting good counsel. > > In which country? Yours. Or the ones in which you do business. -- James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions
Sáb, 2006-10-21 às 00:05 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu: > Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > [...] > > If the content of the essay left even you with nothing to complain about, I > > must have hit the mark. > > He he. Chalk that down as whatever, moron. "Complain about" is/was right > below your moronic drivel available at the posted link. Yeah, of course, > "reply didn't merit a response", right? Uh moron. 3 instances of moron later... doesn't the sun shine where you live at? I'm trully wondering if you'd turn into stone and stop wasting our time. PS: Ciaran, don't feed it. signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: [...] > If the content of the essay left even you with nothing to complain about, I > must have hit the mark. He he. Chalk that down as whatever, moron. "Complain about" is/was right below your moronic drivel available at the posted link. Yeah, of course, "reply didn't merit a response", right? Uh moron. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: PostgreSQL, LGPL and GPL.
I wrote: > Pretty much, but you must provide your software in a form that can be > relinked. Karen Hill writes: > What does that mean? What it says: read the LGPL. If you are dynamically linking you need do nothing special as you are already providing your code in linkable form. You also need not provide source for the library unless you are distributing it in binary form with your package. If you link statically, though, you must include object files so that the user can relink your code to a different version of the library if she wishes. > In .NET... I don't know anything about that. -- 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: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hey FSFE retard, it's malfunction in your brain, not Tivo-like devices. Wow. I'll chalk that down as a win. If the content of the essay left even you with nothing to complain about, I must have hit the mark. -- Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3 http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \ GPLv3 and other work supported by http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: PostgreSQL, LGPL and GPL.
John Hasler wrote:
> > Npgsql is LGPL. It means you must release the source of Npgsql when
> > distributing it, and if you modify Npgsql, but not have to release the
> > source under the (L)GPL of the software that calls Npgsql functions?
>
> Pretty much, but you must provide your software in a form that can be
> relinked.
>
What does that mean? In .NET, you add a reference to the Npgsql dll,
and then add "Using Npgsql;" to the top of the class you want to use
Npgsql in. So if you wrote something like this it would have to go
under the LGPL?:
Using Npgsql;
namespace foo{
class foobar
{
foobar()
{
String connectionString = "";
NpgsqlConnection conn = new NpgsqlConnection(connectionString);
}
}
}
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: PostgreSQL, LGPL and GPL.
Karen Hill writes: > If you make create a PostgreSQL database that uses PostGIS and you > distribute that database, than your database (tables, stored procedures, > views, etc) are GPL? No. > Like wise if you create a client that connects to that database, do they > also become GPL? No. > Does PostgreSQL in effect become GPL when using PostGIS because PostGIS > accesses parts of PostgreSQL? No. > Npgsql is LGPL. It means you must release the source of Npgsql when > distributing it, and if you modify Npgsql, but not have to release the > source under the (L)GPL of the software that calls Npgsql functions? Pretty much, but you must provide your software in a form that can be relinked. > If you provide the source on a CD and the (GPL/LGPL) license as a text > file on that CD if you distribute, then are your obligations met under > the GPL/LGPL? Yes. > What if those you distribute to lose the source code CD, can they then > come after you X number of years later demanding the source? No. > For the developers of LGPL/GPL like Npgsql, why do you not dual license? > Have a model like MySQL where one can purchase a BSD licensed version or > use the GPL/LGPL one. Some don't want their software distributed under closed-source terms. Others just haven't been offered enough money. -- 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: PostgreSQL, LGPL and GPL.
Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] > If you distribute the PostgreSQL server software linked with > the PostGIS software, then you have to comply with the GPL > for both parts of that derivative work. > > If you don't distribute any server software, you do not have > to worry about what the GPL requires. Yeah. A+B is GNU derivative. Go to doctor, schizophrenic de Weerd. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: PostgreSQL, LGPL and GPL.
On 2006-10-20, Karen Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you make create a PostgreSQL database that uses PostGIS and you > distribute that database, than your database (tables, stored > procedures, views, etc) are GPL? No, because those tables, stored procedures etc. are not derivative works of the PostGIS code. > Like wise if you create a client that > connects to that database, do they also become GPL? Does PostgreSQL in > effect become GPL when using PostGIS because PostGIS accesses parts of > PostgreSQL? You have to distinguish the server software from what you store in the database. Your data does not "become GPL" because it's stored in a database managed by a GPL-licensed server. If you distribute the PostgreSQL server software linked with the PostGIS software, then you have to comply with the GPL for both parts of that derivative work. If you don't distribute any server software, you do not have to worry about what the GPL requires. The MySQL people claim that connecting to their database server means your client has to be made GPL, but they're pretty much the only ones saying that. > Npgsql is LGPL. It means you must release the source of Npgsql when > distributing it, and if you modify Npgsql, but not have to release the > source under the (L)GPL of the software that calls Npgsql functions? Yes. > If you provide the source on a CD and the (GPL/LGPL) license as a text > file on that CD if you distribute, then are your obligations met under > the GPL/LGPL? Yes. > What if those you distribute to lose the source code CD, > can they then come after you X number of years later demanding the > source? No. They got the source, they were careless, that's too bad for them. If and only if you told them "instead of giving you the source right now, you (and anyone who wants) can write to me any time in the next three years and I'll give the source to whoever writes to me", then people can demand the source. > For the developers of LGPL/GPL like Npgsql, why do you not dual > license? Have a model like MySQL where one can purchase a BSD licensed > version or use the GPL/LGPL one. Dual licensing is basically trading on ignorance of what the GPL requires and how to work with that. It's not a viable long-term business model. And besides, it's much harder to get contributions from third party if you want to hold that amount of control over the source. Merijn -- Remove +nospam to reply ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
PostgreSQL, LGPL and GPL.
I was looking through the various contrib packages and pgfoundry projects. I noticed that many of them are GPL like PostGIS or LGPL like Npgsql. I have questions. If you make create a PostgreSQL database that uses PostGIS and you distribute that database, than your database (tables, stored procedures, views, etc) are GPL? Like wise if you create a client that connects to that database, do they also become GPL? Does PostgreSQL in effect become GPL when using PostGIS because PostGIS accesses parts of PostgreSQL? Npgsql is LGPL. It means you must release the source of Npgsql when distributing it, and if you modify Npgsql, but not have to release the source under the (L)GPL of the software that calls Npgsql functions? If you provide the source on a CD and the (GPL/LGPL) license as a text file on that CD if you distribute, then are your obligations met under the GPL/LGPL? What if those you distribute to lose the source code CD, can they then come after you X number of years later demanding the source? For the developers of LGPL/GPL like Npgsql, why do you not dual license? Have a model like MySQL where one can purchase a BSD licensed version or use the GPL/LGPL one. regards, Karen ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > > Devices Rigged to Malfunction Hey FSFE retard, it's malfunction in your brain, not Tivo-like devices. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
On 2006-10-20, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Basically, this says "if Sun ever forgets to credit you, >> or performs something you consider a mutilation of your >> work, you won't sue Sun". > > That's basically true. If such a thing weren't there, then other > contributors (including both people inside Sun and those outside) > would be unable to fix any bugs in the code you contribute. Of course anyone is free to fix bugs in code submissions. The only thing other people can't do is *mutilate* the code. This is a very high standard that's not easy to meet. Merijn -- Remove +nospam to reply ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
Drazen Kacar writes: > USA is as arbitrary third location from my point of view. The whole USA, > not just California. And I certainly don't want to be dragged in any USA > court. "Governed by California law" does not mean "governed by California courts". It just means that whatever court is interpreting the license should apply California law. Some courts may, of course, choose not to do so, but US Federal courts will. So will ICC arbitration panels, I believe. -- 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: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Drazen Kacar wrote: > [...] > > Irish copyright law gives such moral rights to individuals, the said > > rights are not transferable and there's no way to give them up, as > > far as Irish law is concerned. > > http://www.icla.ie/index.php?information > > "Moral rights may be waived, but a waiver must be in writing." I misremembered. I tried to think of the copyright law which is available in English, so the interested parties could check, but I didn't check myself. I appologize for the confusion. > Ireland aside for a moment, see also > > http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/ilj/rigamonti.pdf Interesting document. Thaks for pointing that out. > If there is a general set of rules that has emerged from the case law in > France and Germany, it is > (i) that authors cannot legally relinquish or abandon the rights of > attribution and integrity altogether, > (ii) that advance blanket waivers are unenforceable, and > (iii) that narrowly tailored waivers that involve reasonably > foreseeable encroachments on the author's moral rights are > generally valid. I don't know what is "narrowly tailored waiver" supposed to look like. But I suppose that's from the court practice, not from the copyright law. And yes, copyright laws in Europe vary in details, even when the general principles are the same. They are also updated from time to time. -- .-. .-.Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely (_ \ / _) ceremonial. | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
Drazen Kacar wrote: [...] > Sigh. I asked a lawyer about certain things once, when I needed legal > advice. Two American lawyers, in fact. And they both said, among other > things, "Never give jurisdiction away". And then went on to explain the > reasons. But choice of law is not jurisdiction. Google Rome convention. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
Drazen Kacar wrote: [...] > Irish copyright law gives such moral rights to individuals, the said > rights are not transferable and there's no way to give them up, as > far as Irish law is concerned. http://www.icla.ie/index.php?information "Moral rights may be waived, but a waiver must be in writing." Ireland aside for a moment, see also http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/ilj/rigamonti.pdf -- If there is a general set of rules that has emerged from the case law in France and Germany, it is (i) that authors cannot legally relinquish or abandon the rights of attribution and integrity altogether, (ii) that advance blanket waivers are unenforceable, and (iii) that narrowly tailored waivers that involve reasonably foreseeable encroachments on the authors moral rights are generally valid.139 In the context of the right of integrity, this essentially means that courts are inclined to side with the author if the other party to the contract distorts140 the work then attempts to invoke a generic waiver provision in its defense.141 Conversely, the courts tend to rule against authors if the authors approve specific modifications either before or after the fact and then try to rely on their inalienable moral rights to reverse their previous decision to the detriment of the other party to the contract.142 Regarding the right of attribution, the common denominator is that authors always preserve their right to disclose the fact of their authorship, even if they previously agreed to publish their work anonymously or under a pseudonym.143 Whether such disclosure makes the author liable for breach of contract is a different question, which is decided on a case-by-case basis.144 Yet another question is whether authors who contractually waive their moral right of attribution can later change their minds and demand attribution.145 The general trend in France and Germany146 is to recognize these waivers as valid,147 but also to allow authors to unilaterally revoke them for the future,148 at least after the passing of a certain time period.149 [...] What distinguishes the British system from the French, German, and Italian moral rights regimes is that the rights of attribution and integrity come with a host of substantive limitations and exceptions that reduce the scope of their application to the point where statutory moral rights become largely symbolic. Aside from a number of restrictions on remedies,284 for example, the rights of attribution and integrity do not apply to computer programs, to works made for hire, to works published in periodicals, or to collective works of reference,285 and authors of musical works need not be named when the work is publicly performed.286 Moreover, it is doubtful whether the right of attribution includes a right of anonymity,287 and the CDPA specifically states that the right of attribution is not infringed unless previously asserted in a written instrument, with the exception of the public exhibition of artistic works, in which case affixing the authors name to a copy of the work is sufficient.288 With respect to the right of integrity, the statutory definition of derogatory treatment explicitly excludes translations of literary or dramatic works, as well as arrangements or transcriptions of musical works involving no more than a change of key or register,289 and it is questionable whether the right of integrity covers contextual modifications in addition to actual modifications.290 Aside from the issue of scope, the most important feature of statutory moral rights law in the United Kingdom is its exceptionally generous waiver regime.291 The CDPA allows authors and directors to validly consent to any act that violates their moral rights.292 --- regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
James Carlson wrote: > Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Basically, this says "if Sun ever forgets to credit you, > > or performs something you consider a mutilation of your > > work, you won't sue Sun". > > That's basically true. If such a thing weren't there, then other > contributors (including both people inside Sun and those outside) > would be unable to fix any bugs in the code you contribute. Why? AFAIK, Sun has (or has had) employees in Ireland. Irish copyright law gives such moral rights to individuals, the said rights are not transferable and there's no way to give them up, as far as Irish law is concerned. Did that prevent other people to fix bugs in their code? -- .-. .-.Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely (_ \ / _) ceremonial. | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
James Carlson wrote: > Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > James Carlson wrote: > > > > That's void under my local copyright law, > > Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. Particularly > so for the ".hr" domain. Well, the .hr domain has copyright law which is similar to copyright laws in a large number of Europeean countries. And, of course, they don't have the same laws. Nor even the same governing principles for the copyright law. > I do note that you've conveniently omitted the preceding sentence > which makes it clear that it's to the extent permitted by law. I have. That was because the agreement specifies USA law, so my sentence quoted above was meant as an example of a different law, nothing more. However, there's no court in the USA which would apply something that's not in the USA copyright law. That was supposed to be the point. Besides, sententes which say "to the extent permitted by law" in various contracts, agreements and licenses are there for one purpose only: most countries have a law which says that the whole contract is void if one provision is illegal (that is, not permitted by some law in that particular country). So the contracts, agreements and licenses meant for international cosumption have a statement which makes the rest of the contract, agreement or license legal. And that statement is "to the extent permitted by applicable law" or something to that effect. That is the default in such matters. I didn't think I had to point out the defaults. > My understanding is that "moral rights" are not necessarily the same > as copyrights in all countries, which is why they're called out > separately. I do not follow. As far as I can see, the term copyright, as a "one right", doesn't mean anything unless you mean it to include all the rights under the particular copyright law. > But if you have a concern here with this or with any > other contract language, then you really need competent legal > representation. I don't have a concern with syntax (contract language), I have a concern with semantics (what it means). > Turning to netnews as a way to get legal advice is a questionable > tactic. I wasn't looking for legal advice, I was merly trying to participate in the discussion. > > And then: > > > >This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of > >California and applicable U.S. Federal law, without application of > >choice of law rules. > > > > That, in case one does not live in the State of California, happens to be > > a pretty large giveaway. > > Nonsense. It protects both Sun and the contributor from being dragged > to arbitrary third locations to defend themselves. Dragged by whom? USA is as arbitrary third location from my point of view. The whole USA, not just California. And I certainly don't want to be dragged in any USA court. I have nothing against them, but, you know, there are people who just don't live in the USA. > But, again, if you don't understand the language there (legalese is > indeed dense stuff), you're best off getting good counsel. In which country? > Anything else -- regarding this license or the GPL or any other legal > matter -- is nearly pure guesswork. > > You wouldn't ask a lawyer to write your code, would you? Sigh. I asked a lawyer about certain things once, when I needed legal advice. Two American lawyers, in fact. And they both said, among other things, "Never give jurisdiction away". And then went on to explain the reasons. -- .-. .-.Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely (_ \ / _) ceremonial. | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
Casper H.S Dik wrote: > Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Eh? But it says: > > > You agree never to assert against Sun or its licensees or transferees > > any moral rights therein. > > >That's void under my local copyright law, but the provision certainly is > >giving copyright rights away. And then: > > Why is that void in you rlocal law? (Just interested). On principle, for the same reason why slave trade is illegal. In jurisdictions which have them, the lists of rights which fall under moral rights slightly differ, but in general those rights are not something that has market value. The usual one is the right to be identified as an author of the work in question. But then there are others. I'm not good at translating legal terms, but there's a provision which says that the author has moral right to prevent circulation of "butchered" derivations. For example, a film producer might decide to add slimey happy end. No can do, unless the director says it's OK. Contractual provisions which negate that right are void. In case of software, the same provision means that it's possible for the author to stop circulation of a derivative work which happens to be so buggy that it's practicly unusable and severly harms author's reputation. (This is my interpretations, there were no court cases, as far as I know.) And that's a right I'd like to retain. :-) > I'm not sure it is giving rights away; you retain the right to copy, > modify, etc; but you share that right with others. Sharing is not a problem. Inability to put an end to the abuse is. > > This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of > > California and applicable U.S. Federal law, without application of > > choice of law rules. > > >That, in case one does not live in the State of California, happens to be > >a pretty large giveaway. > > > Please read: > > http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue > > before you think that this is a large giveaway. I still think it's a large concession. But there's more than one issue. > (Exec. Summary: If the California courts have no jurisdiction, this clause > does not change that) OK, let's start with that. The article says so, and the article is probably correct, but I don't have a problem with the choice of venue (that's what the article is all about). I have a problem with the jurisdiction. Most countries don't have legal machinery which is compatible with other countries, up to the point that other legal systems are treated as non-existant. There are practical reasons for that and I recognize them, but they become my problem only if I agree for them to become my problem. As far as I can see, the article assumes both parties live (trade, make business or whatever) in the USA and then goes to say that California courts have no jurisdiction unless both parties live, trade, make business or whatever in California. That's all nice and fine, but what if the parties don't live in the same country at all? Side note: bilateral international treaties might or might not exist (no way to tell, because I don't know in which coutry I'll live ten years from now). There are multilateral international agreements about jurisdiction problems which have a higher probability of being in effect, but a lot of software licenses I've seen specify that they shall not govern the case. Wonder why. (This is not related to the case in question, I'm just being a smart-ass). My second issue with the article is that it's about CDDL and not about contributor agreement. When the CDDL was in draft I complained about jurisdiction provision here, Joerg said he complained also (to Sun) and that the issue would be taken care of. And it was, in a way. The CDDL was changed to say that the party which is making the software available will specify the jurisdiction in a note distributed with the software. That isn't that bad and certainly makes CDDL more usable for parties in other jurisdictions. And it's not entirely unfair that Sun should be able to specify jurisdiction for the software it's making available to other parties. Since it's not selling, so trade laws probably don't apply. However, in this case I'm supposed to be the party which is making the software available to the other party, but I can't pick the jurisdiction. I don't like it. -- .-. .-.Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely (_ \ / _) ceremonial. | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Basically, this says "if Sun ever forgets to credit you, > or performs something you consider a mutilation of your > work, you won't sue Sun". That's basically true. If such a thing weren't there, then other contributors (including both people inside Sun and those outside) would be unable to fix any bugs in the code you contribute. > And like Drazen noted, that > kind of clause usually is void (especially the second part). I have no idea about that. If it's actually true, then more power to you. -- James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions
Here's something I wrote about GPLv3 and Devices Rigged to Malfunction: http://kerneltrap.org/node/7238 -- Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3 http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \ GPLv3 and other work supported by http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
