Get a head start on a new computer career
http://bvbvy.7et4ao70mz7emq7.epoptjgifd.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just to clear the air, here's some mistakes I'm aware of making today:
(1) I thought the Progress Software v. MySQL case was still pending.
While I've not found a formal statement to this effect, I've since
read that the case settled out of court.
(2) I incorrectly assumed that the gender of the
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frankly, Raul, anyone who believes your reading of the Progress
> Software v. MySQL decision deserves what he or she gets.
You can pat yourself on the back all you want about how
you have superior insight into what the court would have
d
Frankly, Raul, anyone who believes your reading of the Progress
Software v. MySQL decision deserves what he or she gets.
Cheers,
- Michael
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This doesn't do anything for the distributor of copyright infringing
> > software. 17 USC 117 only protects users of that software.
>
> Stipulate that, _contrary_to_law_, we read "mere aggregation" to mean
> _only_ on storage media and
As I tire of swatting flies with a Howitzer (TM), and have been
neglecting important work in favor of this debate, I will be taking a
bit of a sanity break. (And a sigh of relief was heard across the
land.)
Cheers,
- Michael
On 5/12/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And, I might add, this is another respect in which the FSF FAQ verges
> > upon the dishonest. Since 17 USC 117 explicitly limits the scope of
> > what can be considered infringement u
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, I might add, this is another respect in which the FSF FAQ verges
> upon the dishonest. Since 17 USC 117 explicitly limits the scope of
> what can be considered infringement under section 106, it also
> nullifies any claims of contrib
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is irrelevant. Its creative status independs of its performance.
Its performance is evidence of its creative status.
> You are saying that hello_world in isolation will not perform. Neither
> will the debian package of the daemon that l
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyway, I was not talking about distributing the "working" hello_world
> > (if you are referring to the working set of it in RAM, after loaded --
> > after all, this is the only thi
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Anyway, I was not talking about distributing the "working"
>>hello_world (if you are referring to the working set of it in RAM,
>>after loaded -- after all, this is the only thing that "performs"
>>when a file is d
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>Note that your argument contains correct logic but incorrect facts.
>libsnmp is more or less BSD licensed (
>http://www.net-snmp.org/about/license.html ). It is Quagga that is
>GPL'ed. Substitute, say, a GPL'ed HTTP client library in place of
>libsnmp, and it's all good
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I was not talking about distributing the "working" hello_world
> (if you are referring to the working set of it in RAM, after loaded --
> after all, this is the only thing that "performs" when a file is dynalinked)
Note also that all
On 5/12/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Or he could consult a law book, of course. I don't bother with
> > citations to Nimmer on Copyright or Corbin on Contracts or whatever
> > except when I find them quoted in a court op
Raul Miller wrote:
The working hello_world program is a collection.
This program (hello_world) taken in isolation will not perform.
This is irrelevant. Its creative status independs of its performance.
You are saying that hello_world in isolation will not perform. Neither
will the debian packag
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip arguments which appear, on a somewhat cursory reading, to be 100% correct]
> Ok. Now (again) back to the libssl problem.
>
> Is a daemon "dx.c" that when compiled, links with libsnmp, and
> indirectly with libssl, a derivative work of an
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
> >for copyright protection, even if the only creative effort that went
> >into them is the selection and arrangement of their contents.
> >
> >
> DY-NA-
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or he could consult a law book, of course. I don't bother with
> citations to Nimmer on Copyright or Corbin on Contracts or whatever
> except when I find them quoted in a court opinion, because I can't
> just hand you a URL. But if you c
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I will do my "repeated assertion" act: It's a dynamically linked
executable, for the love of $DEITY!
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creat
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will do my "repeated assertion" act: It's a dynamically linked
> executable, for the love of $DEITY!
Which makes it a collective work. Collective works can be eligible
for copyright protection, even if the only creative effort that went
i
On 5/12/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All copyright _licenses_ (in the US, anyway) are terms in contracts.
>
> This does seem to be your main thesis.
>
> You have not provided any reason to believe that this generalizati
Raul Miller wrote:
>On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
>>gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I
>>don't think so.
>>
>>#include
>>
>>int main(int, char**)
>>{
>> puts("Hi");
>> return
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All copyright _licenses_ (in the US, anyway) are terms in contracts.
This does seem to be your main thesis.
You have not provided any reason to believe that this generalization
must hold in all cases.
Instead, you've been using the fu
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
> gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I don't
> think so.
>
> #include
> int main(int, char**) {
> puts("Hi"); return 0;
> }
>
> What is a dynamical
On 12 May 2005 09:46:28 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the apology. Would you consider posting a short outline
> of how you would rebut the argument in general, rather than getting
> annoyed writing a point-by-point demolition? I'd ignore any "you
> can't answer everything you
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Federal copyright law presumes irreparable harm from the
> infringement of a copyright. See Cadence Design Systems,
> 125 F.3d at 826-27.
Exactly.
--
Raul
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You inverted the "do more" and "do less". Publishing an arbitrary set
of
anthologies is "do more" as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does
On 5/12/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just in case anyone was worried about this issue:
>
> On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So it should be possible to treat the GPL as if an implicit contract
> >
Just in case anyone was worried about this issue:
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So it should be possible to treat the GPL as if an implicit contract
> > had been signed, and proceed from there, and the damages inf
On 5/12/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
> > does not constitute permission to distribute binaries. The principle
> > under Brazilian law seems to be that restrictions on distribution of
> >
Used Rolex Watch
http://consecutively.nlav.com/rep/vron/Diplodocus.html
Mens and Ladies Rolex Watches
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raul Miller writes:
> On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You inverted the "do more" and "do less". Publishing an arbitrary set of
>> anthologies is "do more" as compared to publishing one story.
>
> Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
> does
Raul Miller wrote:
It's been suggested that existing case law with respect to copyrights
always is based on contract law, and that the GPL can only be
understood in terms of contract law.
(...)
However, there is the other option: Tort Law.
I don't know and I won't try to figure out if your a
On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You inverted the "do more" and "do less". Publishing an arbitrary set of
> anthologies is "do more" as compared to publishing one story.
Ok, here's my current understanding: permission to distribute sources
does not constitute permission to
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oferchrissake. Existing case law with respect to copyright _licenses_
> is always, always, always based on contract law (in the US, anyway).
> Would you do me the courtesy of at least correctly stating the
> argument that you are attempti
On 12/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, there is the other option: Tort Law.
Not in some jurisdiction (such as the French and Belgian one). The GPL
is a valid contract, and to sue under tort law is very difficult when
there is some contract between the parties. It has to be
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That is your mistake: it's not the pages that carry protection, it's
the words and illustrations on the pages (as in abstract,
intelectual entities) that carry protection.
I thought copyright was protection for creativ
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] My apologies for polluting people's in-boxes. You will
> perhaps understand if I refrain from rebutting certain lines of
> argument henceforth, and not mistake it for an inability to do so.=20
Thanks for the apology. Would you consider post
Speaking of people who will be pretty pissed when it turns out that
Eben Moglen has been bullshitting about the legal meaning of the GPL
all along:
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/2216239&tid=147
But for better or for worse, Mr. Wallace doesn't seem to have a
terribly firm gra
39 matches
Mail list logo
