On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Adam McKenna wrote:
> >That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use
> >one
> >copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies
> >on
> >multiple machines, someone would have
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:28:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If I use rcp to copy a work from one machine to another (both which are
> owned an exclusively used by me), this is making a copy but not
> distributing.
If someone sniffs your connection and obtains a copy of the document, th
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:43:38PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I went through the RC bugs which apply to etch and are older than one year.
> > This is a rather disturbing list, as you would expect from the age of the
> > bugs.
> > In most
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:47:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Adam McKenna wrote:
> >Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read
> >or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it
> >is not equivalent to having access.
> If A depends on B then
Raul Miller writes:
> > Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is
> > governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does
> > copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work?
>
> I disagree with your assertion that copyleft goes beyond what i
On 3/19/06, Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of
> >> freedom to merely "distributable by Debian".
>
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Your suggestion is
On 3/19/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If it's someone else's GPL'd C code, then in your hypothetical example,
> > he's supposed provide source to his students should they ask for it.
>
> That is my point. The Word document is the source
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
>
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant.
>
> Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have
> written it oneself) and in I didn't fin
On 18 Mar 2006 22:46:24 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought it was rather obvious that I meant that in the sense of the
> original scenario, and not in the general case.
I'm not sure what's not obvious in what I said.
> You claim that the GFDL "can not be taken to apply wh
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and
> distribute'.
An argument could be made that a person making a
copy available for other people to read under restricted
circumstances is not distributing that copy.
Note, however, that on
Adam McKenna wrote:
Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read
or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it
is not equivalent to having access.
If A depends on B then not doing/having B prevents A.
If you are not allowed to prevent A, then you
Adam McKenna wrote:
The exact text of the FDL is:
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or
further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
For the purposes of this clause, there are two kinds of copies that can
be made.
1) Copies that are made, but n
Adam McKenna wrote:
That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one
copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on
multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more
than one copy at a time,
The plaintiff needs to d
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:39:56 + MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> I think that's the one. There are several often called MIT. Someone
>> has moved the copy on X.org to which
>> http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ links - has anyone
>> a new URL besides the fai
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just use dvdrtools instead.
>> >
>> > ITYM dvd+rw-tools,
>>
>> That's wh
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:04:36PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> The license says "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
> control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
> distribute." It does not say "... control the reading or further
> copying of the copies you mak
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:39:56 + MJ Ray wrote:
> I think that's the one. There are several often called MIT. Someone
> has moved the copy on X.org to which
> http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ links - has anyone
> a new URL besides the failed open source initiative, please?
AFAIK, the two
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > If the license said "make and distribute", then that would exclude the
> > technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in
> > itself let you make personal copies without obeying the lic
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> If the license said "make and distribute", then that would exclude the
> technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in
> itself let you make personal copies without obeying the license.
Right, unless the copy
Adam McKenna writes:
> As a legal excercise, maybe. Practically, it does not. Consider the
> following two statements:
>
> If you don't have permission to make personal copies from the law (say, you
> live in a jurisdiction that does not have the concept of fair use), then you
> have to obey t
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:55:15 + MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 + MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Further: a lot of emphasis is put on whether you are trying to
> > > credit Bob with a hand in your work. That is, whether it is a
> > > credit.
> >
> >
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >
> >> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
> >> >
> >> > I need a bit support to c
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Adam McKenna writes:
>
> > Since I've explained twice now that the use of "and" or "or" in that
> > sentence
> > does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately
> > misrepresenting my position in order to try to i
Adam McKenna writes:
> Since I've explained twice now that the use of "and" or "or" in that sentence
> does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately
> misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me. Also, I said that
> your interpretation is insane, not that you we
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Not really: if it said "and" it would be limited to certain cases.
> > > The "or" case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
> >
> > I
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Not really: if it said "and" it would be limited to certain cases.
> > The "or" case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
>
> I don't agree, for reasons already mentioned.
According to a quick b
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Not really: if it said "and" it would be limited to certain cases.
> The "or" case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
I don't agree, for reasons already mentioned.
> It seems fairly obvious that other people may have access to a
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:14:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Adam McKenna writes:
>
> > But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to
> > obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except
> > yourself.
> >
> > I understand what you're trying to s
Adam McKenna writes:
> But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to
> obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except
> yourself.
>
> I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. You are insisting
> on a basically insane literal interp
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 + MJ Ray wrote:
> > Further: a lot of emphasis is put on whether you are trying to credit
> > Bob with a hand in your work. That is, whether it is a credit.
>
> If it is a credit, it's not an inaccurate or false one, AFAICT.
> I
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I've tried contacting Janusz Nowacki on 28 Apr 2005 and 14 Sep 2005
>>> but received no answer. He's obviously alive, so this could be caused
>>> either by his lack
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:50:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > What's the difference?
> >
> > One has 'or' and the other has 'and'.
> > Your lack of attention to detail is troubling.
>
> Thanks for pointing out the obvious wit
32 matches
Mail list logo
