Re: Corel: No internal exemption in GPL
If my company buys a book, we are not allowed to make 1000 copies of it and hand them out free to all employees and shareholders. We have no right to make copies of the book for this kind of "internal development". Why would it be OK to do this with copyrighted software? Ordinary copyright law does not permit it, and the GPL certainly contains no exception for "internal use" or "internal development". It (or is it the LGPL?) even goes so far as to say that if you link against GPL material in memory, the copy in memory is subject to the GPL even though the material you linked with is not. I trust that Corel IS going to resolve this problem in a fair and friendly way, it seems to me to be an honest mistake--everyone makes mistakes, and I don't hold any grudge over this. I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company. Justin On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 01:09:56AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got a very reassuring phone call from Corel today, I'm confident the problem will be resolved. Regarding your GPL question, I think you could make a case that distribution to your own employee or a contractor is part of internal development, but the beta test agreement doesn't really establish a contractor relationship. Anyway, this is not going to be tested this time. Thanks Bruce
FAQ for abbreviations? Or what are: HtN, LODR,
Hi everybody, Sorry for a silly question :-9 But usual/common terms can be looked up in the dict, most "scientific" terms are latin or greek, so its not a problem at all. But your abbreviations are a bit wierd to me, is there a FAQ anywhere or is sombody so kind to point the most common one used in this list out to me? Best Regards, Angelo - Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Corel: No internal exemption in GPL
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:40:02AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote: I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company. The theory is that the company never distributes to anyone. It nevers provides a proper license for its modifications, since the GPL only restricts distribution. No one can distribute it, since both the company code and the GPL prohibit distribution. The employees in this case never get distributed the code, per se - it's always kept by the company. IIRC, RMS agreed with this line of reasoning. David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Oversimplifications in HtN -- Philosophy and biology
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am sure it does, but in this discussion you said that predicting the hacking behavior of hackers is the only thing we should consider when we try to understand hacking and hackers. How the heck do you get that out of a presentation that includes John Locke, microeconomic analysis, and several million years of human evolutionary history? You even went so far as to say that Ian's statements of his own motivations count for nothing. *What*? Either I've suddenly forgotten how to write or you're having serious problems with English comprehension today. Of *course* Ian's statements count for something; I don't think I ever claimed otherwise. A theory of behavior that retrodicts correctly about most peoples' accounts of their internal experience is clearly superior to one that doesn't. So I am not interested in a theory based on denial of this, even if it does "predict [certain aspects of] the behavior of hackers" well enough. It is especially ironic that you chose this quote from me, since it was attached approvingly to one of the alternate explanations you claim I'm denying... -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a [The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. -- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
license-review mailing list
Since we're not getting a response from OSI staff, and the off-topic material continues, I propose to establish [EMAIL PROTECTED] . This list will be restricted to review of licenses for Open Source Definition compliance. Comments? Thanks Bruce
Re: license-review mailing list
At 07:19 PM 9/22/99 -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: I probably wouldn't join it, for fear of having a discussion about a license suddenly trigger someone's hot button. I for one have tried to refrain from off-topic things here recently, and I do encourage others to do so, but I agree that discussion of license conformance necessarily entails some degree of philosophy discussions. If we are taking votes on this topic, let me concur that after careful consideration -- and even speaking out that maybe a second list was necessary -- I'd have to conclude that I agree with Brian completely. Perhaps this is just a matter that potential licensees need to be exposed to as well -- that a certain indoctrination by learning and being well-versed in the philosophies behind (Open Source|Free Software) is part of the process of crafting an Open Source license. D
Re: license-review mailing list
From: Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] I probably wouldn't join it, for fear of having a discussion about a license suddenly trigger someone's hot button. Well of course we can have it hosted somewhere else than at copythis.org, like at opensource.org where you control it. The hot-buttons being pushed are not mine. A particular incident of Stallman-baiting on this list came close to causing a large company to drop the Open Source process. The sniping at each other has not stopped since then. I'm not asking you to be disciplined about you say. I'm just asking for two lists, so that it gets said on one and not the other. It doesn't sound like too much to ask, Brian. Do you care more about sniping at each other than you do about getting people to produce Open Source licenses for their products? I've been doing a whole lot of negociation to get people to comply with the OSD. A little bit of help to make the job easier would be appreciated. Thanks Bruce
Re: license-review mailing list
On 23 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not asking you to be disciplined about you say. I'm just asking for two lists, so that it gets said on one and not the other. How about instead of changing the list charter (and thus causing those you brought onto this list and are trying to keep here to have to jump yet again) we create another list as an "outlet" for discussions that start here but lose their relevancy to reviewing proposed licenses. That second list should have some sort of mission of its own, but it could be far looser, much like Russ's Free Software Business list. That mission will lead to a name for the list. I don't think something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be productive, though. =) Any suggestions? Brian
Re: license-review mailing list
From: Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about instead of changing the list charter (and thus causing those you brought onto this list and are trying to keep here to have to jump yet again) we create another list as an "outlet" for discussions that start here but lose their relevancy to reviewing proposed licenses. It would definitely be an improvement. Interactions between a particular two people tend to become embarassing. Nobody has been successful in policing this particular problem in the year or more it's been going on. I am tempted to take the draconian path and say that when one of them addresses the other it should go elsewhere, but perhaps all we need is for it to go elsewhere any time discussion touches upon personal criticism. But whatever policy we decide, I'd invite you to watch carefully. Thanks Bruce
more nice news to report
Besides the nice news about ATT, I think I am still making progress with Corel (despite what went down in LinuxWorld.com today) and the U.S. Census sent me a copy of Tiger/Line 1988 (complete digital map of U.S. streets) which will go into the public domain and be served from my site. Thanks Bruce
oops
That's 1998, not 1988.
Re: Corel: No internal exemption in GPL
They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues, like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years of experience in being talmudic about the GPL. But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GPL could use a definitions appendix. Last time I raised that issue, he said something like he didn't want to do that and then have them be defined later in copyright law in a way that would conflict with the GPL. That seems reasonable, but I will raise the issue again. Thanks Bruce
Re: Corel: No internal exemption in GPL
At 06:20 AM 9/23/99 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues, like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years of experience in being talmudic about the GPL. But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GPL could use a definitions appendix. Last time I raised that issue, he said something like he didn't want to do that and then have them be defined later in copyright law in a way that would conflict with the GPL. That seems reasonable, but I will raise the issue again. Considering RMS subscribes to this list (I think)... it could be argued you just did raise the issue again... :) D
