M J Ray wrote:
"Joe Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] It has long been
held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a
cassette tape from a cd).
Maybe you've just worded this badly, or maybe you're relying on
some specific place's laws, but my private copying is su
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> If a person has no reason to think that something may possibly be illeagal
> then there is likely a severe problem with the law.
There are severe problems with copyright law. Doesn't change whether
or not you broke it.
> For example, if a law prohib
- Original Message -
From: "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It is hard to
convict somebody for violating a law that they honestly have no reason to
belive they might have violated. [...]
Never heard the expression "ignorance is not a defence"? One
would still be found guilty, but penaltie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is private modification safeguarded by the DFSG? I think so.
I don't.
>DFSG 1, 3 and 6 interaction.
Not really obvious.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 17 USC 106 (which 17 USC 117 references) subparagraph b, is rediculous.
1. that is all about US law. Debian is distributed many other places.
2. many people consider much copyright law ridiculous. Sadly, it's
still the law and does "the law is an ass" ever
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 22:37:31 -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> >This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under
> >17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an
> >essential step in the utilization of the program.
>
> Certainly if a program fails to do what you
"Michael Poole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under
17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an
essential step in the utilization of the program. Under 17 USC
117(b), you need a
This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under
17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an
essential step in the utilization of the program.
Certainly if a program fails to do what you desire, changing it is esential
for use of the program to do as
Joe Smith writes:
>> You are confusing limited fair use rights (which only exist in some
>> jurisdictions) with substantial rights to copy and modify a work.
>
> WelltThat may be true, but in the US one cannot commit copyright infringment
> by simply modifying a tangible copy of a work, only by c
"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] It has long been
held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a
cassette tape from a cd).
Maybe you've just worded this badly,
Perhaps. Regardless. In ge
You are confusing limited fair use rights (which only exist in some
jurisdictions) with substantial rights to copy and modify a work.
WelltThat may be true, but in the US one cannot commit copyright infringment
by simply modifying a tangible copy of a work, only by copying it. (After
all, if
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] It has long been
> held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a
> cassette tape from a cd).
Maybe you've just worded this badly, or maybe you're relying on
some specific place's laws, but my private copying is subject to
c
Joe Smith writes:
> "Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>So this license prohibits private modifications.
>
> Based on what I see, this was intended to be expat or BSD-like, except
> requiring that the source be available on distribution. This is somew
"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So this license prohibits private modifications.
Based on what I see, this was intended to be expat or BSD-like, except
requiring that the source be available on distribution. This is somewhat
more like the MPL. It
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:47:59PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently
> removed as it was orphaned.
> I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything
> terribly wrong with it.
> Can someone with more lic
Hi,
The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently
removed as it was orphaned.
I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything
terribly wrong with it.
Can someone with more licensing-fu than me please tell me what's wrong with
it?
I wouldn't min
16 matches
Mail list logo
