"none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not sure why the BSD advertising clause is unenforceable in the U.S. To
> me it is a contract clause in the BSD like all other clauses
> therein.
It's obviously not a contract, for the usual reasons. It's a public
license, not a contract.
> If the BSD
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
- Original Message -
From: "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Junichi Uekawa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Question about the old BSD license and GPL (gtkipms
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is hereby
established. etc. etc.
Here are some salient quotes from the 9th Circuit decision in the Napster
case:
Traditionally, "one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces,
causes or materially contributes to the infringing
> > Not for the purpose of linking with P, they don't.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:48:32AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> They do. GPL 2(b), which is what requires the entire work to be under
> GPL, explicitly applies only when the entire work is distributed or
> published.
The work comprised of
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It certainly is a clear attempt to evade the copyright on L, but that
> doesn't mean it's not a successful attempt. Just because A's actions
> go against the spirit of what F intended doesn't mean it's illegal.
> Law has to be more precise than th
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hire teams of singing strippers to relay
> the instructions for putting it together
Ah, fond memories of outrageous episodes of Get Smart
Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It not only has the obnoxious advertising clauses, but it also has the
> Apache style "trademark" clauses (Products derived from this software may
> not be called [some words]).
Trademark clauses are a pain in the butt, but remember that they don't
impe
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:49:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Then: P is the source code for a program which includes L. A is
> > > instructing people to download L (if necessary) to compile P.
> > Which is perfectly fine, because all of those p
I haven't made up my mind which side I'm on, but here are some more
random criticisms.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then: P is the source code for a program which includes L. A is
> instructing people to download L (if necessary) to compile P.
>
> This is a clear attempt to evade the copy
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:49:07AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > [1] P has no copyright on it, so it doesn't have a GPL copyright on it.
>
> Of course there is a copyright on P. It belongs to A.
You did not mention that A had granted copyright to anyone else,
which makes this incompatible wit
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:18:04AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I don't see any minor or major copyright violations in this scenario:
> > 1) F produces a library L and releases it under the GPL
> > 2) A produces a program P that links to L.
> >
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:18:04AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I don't see any minor or major copyright violations in this scenario:
>
> 1) F produces a library L and releases it under the GPL
> 2) A produces a program P that links to L.
> 3) A distributes the source code for P (but not
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:11:00AM -0600, Walter Landry wrote:
> > could argue that it has cryptographic software, and so should go into
> > non-US.
>
> This doesn't work. CSS was specifically designed to be export-grade.
> And all of the non-US crypto restrictions have already fallen away
> fro
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 10:04:23PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Oh. In that case I would suppose that "contributory infringement"
> > logically requires that somebody actually infringes on the copyright.
> > Who would that be in this case?
> The ide
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:41:49AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> However... this is not an ordinary executable. FreeDOS _is_ an
> operating system! It doesn't run on anything else. So I think
> the escape clause is unusable here.
Hm... actually, that's not true either. The reason we want
to
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:50:30PM -0400, Brett Smith wrote:
> > Which is why the GPL leaves it up to the particular operating system in
> > question. Note again: "the source code distributed need not include
> > anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of
> > the ope
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:50:30PM -0400, Brett Smith wrote:
> Which is why the GPL leaves it up to the particular operating system in
> question. Note again: "the source code distributed need not include
> anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of
> the operating sys
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:50:30PM -0400, Brett Smith wrote:
> Which is why the GPL leaves it up to the particular operating system in
> question. Note again: "the source code distributed need not include
> anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of
> the operating sys
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:11:00AM -0600, Walter Landry wrote:
> could argue that it has cryptographic software, and so should go into
> non-US.
This doesn't work. CSS was specifically designed to be export-grade.
And all of the non-US crypto restrictions have already fallen away
from official law
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 10:52:56AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 06:51:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > FreeDOS includes components which are licensed under the GPL. Those
> > components are currently built with a compiler from Borland, and
> > consequently linked with the C
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 10:04:23PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Oh. In that case I would suppose that "contributory infringement"
> logically requires that somebody actually infringes on the copyright.
> Who would that be in this case?
Well, basically yes, in that "contributory infringement" is
IANAL.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 01:16:06PM -0600, Walter Landry wrote:
> This implies that the compiler is considered to be a major part of the
> operating system, whether it really is or not. The question is then,
> which compiler? I would submit that any compiler will do. The
> license doesn't
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 10:04:23PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Oh. In that case I would suppose that "contributory infringement"
> logically requires that somebody actually infringes on the copyright.
Ha ha ha, you clearly haven't been paying attention to court cases where
the MPAA, RIAA, or a
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:59:44PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > I think RMS's reasoning is that if you ever distribute the library
> > > > to A, you need to accept the contract called GPL - and in that
> > > > contract you promise to refrain from
> Here's a teaser for all the licence enthusiasts here.
>
> FreeDOS includes components which are licensed under the GPL. Those
> components are currently built with a compiler from Borland, and
> consequently linked with the C library that comes with it. The licence
> of the library is of cours
> Hi,
>
>
> The libdvdcss is the Videolan project's DVD decryption software. I
> would like to know other's position on packaging and distributing it
> with Debian.
>
> http://www.videolan.org/libdvdcss/
>
> I am all for political activism, but I realize that it may cause
> trouble to Debian so
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 06:51:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> FreeDOS includes components which are licensed under the GPL. Those
> components are currently built with a compiler from Borland, and
> consequently linked with the C library that comes with it. The licence
> of the library is of course
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:59:44PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > I think RMS's reasoning is that if you ever distribute the library
> > > to A, you need to accept the contract called GPL - and in that
> > > contract you promise to refrain from ever distributing to B a program
> > > that links
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:59:44PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think RMS's reasoning is that if you ever distribute the library
> > to A, you need to accept the contract called GPL - and in that
> > contract you promise to refrain from ever distri
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Here's a teaser for all the licence enthusiasts here.
>
> FreeDOS includes components which are licensed under the GPL. Those
> components are currently built with a compiler from Borland, and
> consequently linked with the C library that comes with it. The lic
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Herbert> This will decide whether we can distribute FreeDOS binary
>Herbert> packages as currently it requires the Borland compiler to
>Herbert> build. -- Debian
> Hmm, I assume this pus
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Who knows, for a court it might be enough that you used the GPL'ed stuff for
> your development, and link to it on some web page. I don't know, as IANAL.
Yes, courts are very unpredictable. However, we shouldn't get too
obsessed about what a court might or
> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Herbert> This will decide whether we can distribute FreeDOS binary
Herbert> packages as currently it requires the Borland compiler to
Herbert> build. -- Debian
Hmm, I assume this pushes it into non-free if we can distribute? H
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 10:23:09AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Copyright law is not concerned about that, and the question if
> > something is a derived work from something else has nothing to do
> > with the specific details of an a
Here's a teaser for all the licence enthusiasts here.
FreeDOS includes components which are licensed under the GPL. Those
components are currently built with a compiler from Borland, and
consequently linked with the C library that comes with it. The licence
of the library is of course not compat
>> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Copyright law is not concerned about that, and the question if
> something is a derived work from something else has nothing to do
> with the specific details of an abstract idea like an interface, only
> with the fine details on its implementa
36 matches
Mail list logo
