On 17 May 2005 05:14:13 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of
snippets from the About page:
quote
An open source clone of the Microprose game Transport Tycoon Deluxe.
OpenTTD is
On 5/16/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 16 May 2005 05:31 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Raul, a work made by collecting X, Y, and Z is not a derivative work
of X. Not even if the selection and arrangement involved is
original enough to be copyrightable, and a fortiori
Is the license[1] for sphinx4 DFSG compliant?
wt
[1] http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/sphinx4/license.terms
--
Warren Turkal
Consultant, Penguin Techs
http://www.penguintechs.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think the appeals court asserted? I stand by my
statement: in the absence of a proper analysis of the scope of
license, the district court's judgment was wrong. And, I might add,
the district court, on re-hearing, dismissed
See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable
expression from Transport Tycoon.
Ok. I'm conviced you're probably right.
--
Cheers,
Massa
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable
expression from Transport Tycoon.
Ok.
De: Måns Rullgård [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my
response to Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in
reference to artworks, it's the fact that the game experience
plagiarizes
Raul Miller writes:
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think the appeals court asserted? I stand by my
statement: in the absence of a proper analysis of the scope of
license, the district court's judgment was wrong. And, I might add,
the district court, on
On 5/17/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do have a point, too. But in the specific case of TTD, could the
game engine be *really* generic? I don't really think so.
Maybe. But openttd is more generic than MicroStar's game mods.
MicroStar's game mods were designed and
A bit counterfact maybe but ...
Let's say, if I liked the concept of TTD (which I did), and started to
write a FreeTycoon like freeciv, without using any material from TTD at
all, and also without requiring original TTD data for execution, how close
could I make it to the original *rules* and
De: Per Eric Rosén [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A bit counterfact maybe but ...
Let's say, if I liked the concept of TTD (which I did), and
started to write a FreeTycoon like freeciv, without using any
material from TTD at all, and also without requiring original TTD
data for execution, how
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Rules and behaviour IMHO are (in Brasil at least) safe, even from
patents. What would be a good translation for mise en scene? This
is a concept that I find kind of difficult to explain.
Anyway, you are *confessing* in your first paragraph
De: Per Eric Rosén [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Rules and behaviour IMHO are (in Brasil at least) safe, even
from patents. What would be a good translation for mise en
scene? This is a concept that I find kind of difficult to
explain.
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when someone does so -- as the drafter of the GPL has done
-- I think a court should have no difficulty in acknowledging the
licensee's right to have it construed narrowly if he or
On 5/17/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
I don't really know what a pure copyright license means,
and I'm not arguing that that is the case. [I am arguing,
elsewhere, that there are some reasonable moral standards
associated with legal conduct in these
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it = the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and
hence of 'work based on the Program'
And, hence, something that's licensed under the GPL.
I agree -- especially since it's the grant of license which is being
construed
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Actually, it's circularly bullshit. The scope of that license does
include the making and distribution of collective works, courtesy of
both the mere aggregation
On 5/17/05, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Up until a day or two ago I could chalk that up to difficulty with
reading comprehension, but the whole business with citing Sun v.
Microsoft as proof that some courts skip contract analysis, and then
refusing to acknowledge that he was
Then again, as an example of a copyright case where
contract law was held to be irrelevant, consider Huston v. La
Cinq Cass. civ. 1re (28 May 1991).
On 5/17/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, so a French court could claim jurisdiction over a case where a
modification is made
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it = the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and
hence of 'work based on the Program'
And, hence, something that's licensed under the GPL.
Did you happen to notice
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But for future reference, if you think that something I have written
leads inexorably to the conclusion that Debian is prohibited from
distributing Sarge CD #1, you're probably misreading it -- except when
I express that fear myself, as I
Raul Miller writes:
Then again, as an example of a copyright case where
contract law was held to be irrelevant, consider Huston v. La
Cinq Cass. civ. 1re (28 May 1991).
On 5/17/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, so a French court could claim jurisdiction over a case where a
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I claim that the GPL is not a contract.
I don't believe I'm disputing any claim you've made when
I say this, because near as I can tell you have never
actually asserted that the GPL is a contract. The closest
you've come seems to
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I claim that the GPL is not a contract.
I don't believe I'm disputing any claim you've made when
I say this, because near as I can tell you have never
actually asserted that the
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a reminder: I favor the use of the non-crack-smoking GPL on a much
broader basis than it is used today. I would like to see all open
source projects, FSF and otherwise, relicensed exclusively under the
GPL so that we can roll up our
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is an offer of contract, no more and no less.
Ok... if you offer me the GPL as a contract, and I
accept, at that point the GPL is not the whole of the
contract but it's more than an offer. So I'm already
losing track of your
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I guess I don't see the point of all this.
That much, at least, is clear to all observers. Does anyone else have
any difficulty in following the flow of my argument as given, or in
finding ample support for it in the statutes and case law
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 09:38:52PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I guess I don't see the point of all this.
That much, at least, is clear to all observers. Does anyone else have
any difficulty in following the flow of my argument
On 5/17/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 09:38:52PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I guess I don't see the point of all this.
That much, at least, is clear to all observers. Does anyone else
30 matches
Mail list logo
