I got the following email back from Michael. So with the clarification
below that it is not allowed to use the JPEG-2000 part of the code for
non-standards based work make it non DFSG free? If so is there anyway to
make it DFSG free and still uphold their wishes as stated below?
Thanks,
Chris Ch
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:33:46PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I got the following email back from Michael. So with the clarification
> below that it is not allowed to use the JPEG-2000 part of the code for
> non-standards based work make it non DFSG free? If so is there anyway to
> make it DFSG
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:58:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> By using copyright law to reinforce software patents (which are a load
> of hooey to begin with of course), the license becomes non-free. A
> notice that the software is subject to patents would be free, but making
> it a binding pa
Dear Martin and Others:
I dislike the notion of software patents just as much as you do,
perhaps even more as they have been causing me a lot of grief with
respect to JasPer. I am very much in favor of software with no usage
restrictions at all. In an ideal world, JasPer would have no usage
rest
On 2003-12-16 19:37:28 + Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I ask is that you please
appreciate the world is far from ideal.
I can appreciate that, but can you please appreciate that your
software licence is far from ideal?
I have received a number of
rather unkind e-mail f
On 2003-12-17 00:57:43 + Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have received a number of
rather unkind e-mail from some members of the open-source community.
Please name them.
Please do not take offense. I am not criticizing the members of this
forum.
I am not taking offence, but I
Michael,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:37:28AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> I dislike the notion of software patents just as much as you do,
> perhaps even more as they have been causing me a lot of grief with
> respect to JasPer. I am very much in favor of software with no usage
> restrictions at
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:37:28AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> Second, and more importantly, there is a critical legal issue involved
> here. In fact, it is for this reason that all of the JasPer
> Contributors agreed that the compliant-usage clause was necessary. The
> troublesome issue is thi
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> I can appreciate that, but can you please appreciate that your
> software licence is far from ideal?
I do acknowledge that. This is why, in an ideal world, I would have
prefered to have a license without usage restrictions (because such a
license would obvious
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:37:28AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> I have received a number of rather unkind e-mail from some members of
> the open-source community. That is, a number of people have been very
> critical of me for the compliant-usage clause in the JasPer license.
> In this regard, I
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Does such a thing as contributory infringement exist for patents? I've
> only heard of that particular evil in relation to copyright.
35 US Code 271, section (c).
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html
Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or
imp
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:22:35PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:37:28AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> > troublesome issue is this: The JasPer Contributors might be held
> > liable for the patent-infringing use of the JasPer software by
> > *others*. This is a very se
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:37:28AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> I dislike the notion of software patents just as much as you do,
> perhaps even more as they have been causing me a lot of grief with
> respect to JasPer. I am very much in favor of software with no usage
> restrictions at all. In a
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:42:06PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> As a member of the ayttm project I'd really just like to see this issue
> resolved. We need a JPEG2000 implementation in order to interoperate
> with Yahoo's webcam feature. While we have a functionality implemented
> against your libra
Arnoud Engelfriet said:
> 35 US Code 271, section (c).
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html
>
> Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or
> imports into the United States a component of a patented
> machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material
> or a
Dear Ben and Others:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Ben Reser wrote:
> Perhaps, there is a compromise that we can make between your license and
> our standards.
> For instance Clause 7 of the GPL specifically covers patents and
> generally covers any case where the distribution of the software may be
> ille
Dear Branden:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > F. This software is for use only in hardware or software products
> > that are compliant with ISO/IEC 15444-1 (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). No
> > license or right to this Software is granted for products that do not
> > comply with ISO/
Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Branden:
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > F. This software is for use only in hardware or software products
> > > that are compliant with ISO/IEC 15444-1 (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). No
> > > license or right to this Software is
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:42:09AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> JasPer. The problem with the GPL is that many commercial organizations
> will not use GPL'd software. For this reason, the GPL was not chosen
> for JasPer.
What about the LGPL? GPL-like, GPL-compatible, but not as "viral" as the G
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:03:47PM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> This is one of the reasons why I object when people claim that JasPer
> is not free software. Only the JPEG-2000 codec module has a usage
> restriction, not the JasPer library proper. I could have released the
> JasPer codec modules
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:42:09AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> I am not sure if you are suggesting that JasPer use the GPL. For what
> it's worth, the GPL license was considered as a potential license for
> JasPer. The problem with the GPL is that many commercial organizations
> will not use GP
"Matt Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:42:09AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> > JasPer. The problem with the GPL is that many commercial organizations
> > will not use GPL'd software. For this reason, the GPL was not chosen
> > for JasPer.
>
> What about the LGPL?
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:42:09AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> Can anyone give me an actual example of a project that
> would like to use the JasPer JPEG-2000 codec in a non-interoperable
> way?
Almighty duh of all duhs, JPEG-2010. Even the original authors
probably won't be able to do it, if th
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:03:47PM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> Dear Branden:
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > F. This software is for use only in hardware or software products
> > > that are compliant with ISO/IEC 15444-1 (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). No
> > > license or righ
Dear Ben and Others:
I have sent an email to Image Power to see if it would be possible to
make a change in the JasPer license. I do not know what will come of
this. It has been a week now, and I have yet to receive a response.
Hopefully, I will hear something from the company soon.
Sincerely,
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 05:08:26AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:42:09AM -0800, Michael Adams wrote:
> > Can anyone give me an actual example of a project that
> > would like to use the JasPer JPEG-2000 codec in a non-interoperable
> > way?
>
> Almighty duh of all duhs
26 matches
Mail list logo
