Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> True enough, but what if they were legally binding electronic signatures?
> Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be and
> watch them go to jail PDQ
No, the point about electronic signatures is that the only one who
*can*
Steve Langasek Wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:50:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> If someone aggregates my MITed work into a GPLed whole, and then
>> someone else takes my MITed work back out, my work *remains under the
>> MIT license*. *It is not licensed under the GNU GPL*. This is N
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> worte:
> Branden suggested this in [EMAIL PROTECTED], I
> think: what if a piece of code was under these types of terms, and when
> removed, instead of reverting to less restrictive terms than the GPL
> (as programs normally do), reverted to a proprietary license?
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can license it under the GPL, but if anyone successfully
> demonstrates that it is all MIT-derived, there will be an interesting
> argument as to whether or not your removal of chunks constitutes enough
> work to grant you copyright (remember, performi
Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ah, here's an analogy that makes sense. Consider software that is an
> anthology of works by several authors under several licenses. Clearly the
> compliling (not in the software sense) author has performed significant
> work. However, the license for the anthol
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most ancient documents exist in many different versions. There is
> significant work involved in putting together a particular text. I
> would guess that this work is covered by copyright, so you can't just
> take the text from a recent and expens
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [*] I once wanted a reliable text of some Edgar Allan Poe. There were
> versions all over the web, of course, but they were all slightly
> different. I made a list of the differences and consulted a microfilm
> copy of an original edition in Cambr
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I can create derivative works from Homer's _Illiad_ even though the
>> copy I'm basing it on is in the Norton Anthology of Literature.
>
> Most ancient documents exist in many different versions. There is
>signific
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 21:29, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That's not the problem of the distributor. If they handwrite "you can
> > > get your own copy from http://foo.com/bar"; on the back of the last page,
> > >
> Claire M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has pointed out several other
> problematic files. Some with a clear non-free license (e.g. "not on
> cdrom" or "not sell") have been removed. But most of the packages have
> some unclear status and I wonder if this should be resolved before
On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 13:28, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 21:29, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > That's not the problem of the distributor. If they handwrite "you can
> > > > get your own copy fr
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:41:00AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> Then the original license would not be compatible with the GPL.
>
> The additional restrictions that "magically appear" when the GPL'd code is
> removed are, well, additional restrictions, incompatible with the GPL.
That was (something
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 13:28, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 21:29, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > That's not the problem of the distributor. If th
On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 15:21, Walter Landry wrote:
> The problem is not that the kids can't get the source, it is that the
> Peace Corps volunteer can't give them paper copies. The volunteer
> can't satisfy all of the conditions on distribution.
I traced this thread back to my original proposal, a
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 07:47:56PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > If evil.c is under the GPL, then it can be modified for any purpose
> > (including disabling its functionality).
>
> For most purposes, yes, but not for *any* purpose. See section
> 2(c) of the GPL for details:
>
> c) If the modi
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 15:21, Walter Landry wrote:
> > The problem is not that the kids can't get the source, it is that the
> > Peace Corps volunteer can't give them paper copies. The volunteer
> > can't satisfy all of the conditions on distribution.
>
>
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 15:21, Walter Landry wrote:
>> > The problem is not that the kids can't get the source, it is that the
>> > Peace Corps volunteer can't give them paper copies. The volunteer
>> > can't sa
Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 15:21, Walter Landry wrote:
> >> > The problem is not that the kids can't get the source, it is that the
> >> > Peace Corps volunteer can
On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 16:35, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the Peace Corps volunteer handwrites the URL for the source on the
> > back of each of the paper copies, then (s)he has fulfilled the license.
> > As an added bonus, the Ghanians don't have to do any
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 02:35:11PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > If the Peace Corps volunteer handwrites the URL for the source on the
> > back of each of the paper copies, then (s)he has fulfilled the license.
> > As an added bonus, the Ghanians don't have to do anything to fulfill the
> > dis
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 16:35, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If the Peace Corps volunteer handwrites the URL for the source on the
> > > back of each of the paper copies, then (s)he has fulfilled the license.
> > > As
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Jun 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
>Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> True enough, but what if they were legally binding electronic signatures?
>> Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be and
>> watch them
22 matches
Mail list logo
