Michael Edwards wrote:
>If one wants to remove ambiguity about the copyright status of small
>contributions to a joint work, one could require either assignment of
>copyright to the primary holder or formal placement into the public
>domain,
One of the very unfortunate side effects of the Berne Co
I wrote:
>> > In contrast, pre-1986 (I think) US law specified that works published (==
>> > deliberately distributed to the public by their authors) without a
copyright
>> > statement went into the public domain.
Michael Edwards wrote:
>1976; but otherwise basically correct (IANAL)
Checked this
Michael Edwards wrote:
>If one wants to remove ambiguity about the copyright status of small
>contributions to a joint work, one could require either assignment of
>copyright to the primary holder or formal placement into the public
>domain,
One of the very unfortunate side effects of the Berne Co
I wrote:
>> > In contrast, pre-1986 (I think) US law specified that works published (==
>> > deliberately distributed to the public by their authors) without a
copyright
>> > statement went into the public domain.
Michael Edwards wrote:
>1976; but otherwise basically correct (IANAL)
Checked this
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:54:54 +0100, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:03:44 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me clarify. :-)
Let me muddify. :-)
> > I have few complaints with the treatment of material for which the authors
> > *claim*
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:54:54 +0100, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:03:44 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me clarify. :-)
Let me muddify. :-)
> > I have few complaints with the treatment of material for which the authors
> > *claim*
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I grow tired of your endless habit of redefining every term in sight
> until it fits your whim, usually in defiance of your previous claims,
> reality, or just plain logic. This is a waste of my time. Go away.
If anyone else on debian-legal agrees with
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I grow tired of your endless habit of redefining every term in sight
> until it fits your whim, usually in defiance of your previous claims,
> reality, or just plain logic. This is a waste of my time. Go away.
If anyone else on debian-legal agrees with
I grow tired of your endless habit of redefining every term in sight
until it fits your whim, usually in defiance of your previous claims,
reality, or just plain logic. This is a waste of my time. Go away.
*plonk*
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.or
I doubt that anyone else thinks that there is a relevant and debatable
issue in play here. Follow-ups to private mail, please.
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Your argument was founded on "There was never a previous law (because
> I didn't like it)", which is nonsense. There was one and it was
> replace
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:26:16AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:04:21 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > > > ... and was enacted in an environment where previously no property
>
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:04:21 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > > ... and was enacted in an environment where previously no property
> > > > right in ideas or expression was widely recognized
> > >
> > > That'
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > ... and was enacted in an environment where previously no property
> > > right in ideas or expression was widely recognized
> >
> > That's not accurate. You're dismissing the previous widely recognized
> > property rights be
Andrew Suffield wrote (in response to me):
> You imply that "protecting intangible assets" is an improvement, and
> that this was not done before, but neither of those are particularly
> accurate.
No, I imply that an asset is a property right, and that the previous
regimes didn't create property r
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:14:41PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:48:40 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:36:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > The classical forms of intellectual property -- copyright, patent,
> > >
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:39:04 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
> > Presumably this would result in a formula for copyright maintenance
> > similar to that now in place for trademark maintenance. Personally, I
> > would not like to see this happen.
>
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:48:40 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:36:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > The classical forms of intellectual property -- copyright, patent,
> > trademark, and trade secrets -- were developed to protect very
> > different
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:21:06PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:43:02 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > I'm not referring to those who sell proprietary licenses to a separate
> > version of the software; I'm referring to those who use a copyleft
> > license and sell excepti
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:20:37 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The only case where what you say holds is where the licensee
> purchasing the proprietary license would have otherwise used the GPL
> license and released source. Which case--encouraging companies to GPL
> source, or funding the further dev
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:43:02 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
> I'm not referring to those who sell proprietary licenses to a separate
> version of the software; I'm referring to those who use a copyleft
> license and sell exceptions for people who want to link their
> proprietary software against that
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:03:44 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me clarify. :-)
>
> I have few complaints with the treatment of material for which the authors
> *claim* copyright.
>
> My complaint is about material distributed willy-nilly by its authors with
> *no* copyright
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:03:44PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Note that this email message is subject to copyright, and can't legally
> be reprinted without permission (except for fair use, such as quotation
> rights). Under pre-1986 US law, it would be public domain, because I
> didn't affi
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:57:49AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I don't think most
> > people find offensive the notion of a sole copyright holder of a GPL-
> > licensed work granting proprietary licenses for a fee.
>
> It's perfectly legal, AFAIK.
Of course.
> * in many cases it generates t
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law. The presumption is
>>"All rights reserved unless you have explicit permission".
Josh Triplett wrote:
>Somehow, I doubt you'd say that about a GPL-licensed package with one
>author who wants to grant a proprietary lic
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 01:38:29 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>I don't think most
>>people find offensive the notion of a sole copyright holder of a GPL-
>>licensed work granting proprietary licenses for a fee.
>
> It's perfectly legal, AFAIK.
> I don't particularly like this bus
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>
>>>Frankly, I think we were better off in the days when copyright had to
>>>be explicitly claimed.
>>>
>>>Anybody who doesn't know enough to claim it obviously doesn't know
>>>enough to license the damn
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 01:38:29 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I don't think most
> people find offensive the notion of a sole copyright holder of a GPL-
> licensed work granting proprietary licenses for a fee.
It's perfectly legal, AFAIK.
I don't particularly like this business model, but there exist
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:36:46PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The classical forms of intellectual property -- copyright, patent,
> trademark, and trade secrets -- were developed to protect very
> different kinds of "intangible assets".
That's a myth, spread by a propaganda campaign run by
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Frankly, I think we were better off in the days when copyright had to
> > be explicitly claimed.
> >
> > Anybody who doesn't know enough to claim it obviously doesn't know
> > enough to license the damn thing properly either. Tha
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If not, what procedure would be needed to make the software DFSG-free?
I'm going to guess clean-room rewrite of all of the documentation, and
of any code that could be affected?
Not *quite*. But close.
(1) Every piece of code must be audited to determine the copyrigh
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:34:47PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Frankly, I think we were better off in the days when copyright had to
> > be explicitly claimed.
> >
> > Anybody who doesn't know enough to claim it obviously doesn't know
> > enough to license the damn thi
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:25:49PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law. The presumption is
>>>"All
>>>rights reserved unless you have explicit permission".
>>
>>Somehow, I doubt you'd say that about a GPL-licensed package with
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Frankly, I think we were better off in the days when copyright had to
> be explicitly claimed.
>
> Anybody who doesn't know enough to claim it obviously doesn't know
> enough to license the damn thing properly either. That would cut out a
> lot of the crap we see.
I agree
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:25:49PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law. The presumption is
> > "All
> > rights reserved unless you have explicit permission".
>
> Somehow, I doubt you'd say that about a GPL-licensed package with one
> author who wa
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:25:49PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>So here's a hypothetical situation; say the current upstream maintainer
> >>was to announce in a very public place, with Cc's to all known
> >>contributor e-mail addresses, his
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>So here's a hypothetical situation; say the current upstream maintainer
>>was to announce in a very public place, with Cc's to all known
>>contributor e-mail addresses, his intent to change the licence of the
>>code to GPL-2 (including documentat
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:01:41PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law. The presumption is "All
> rights reserved unless you have explicit permission".
The fact that it never expires is what sucks about it. The default
copyright permissions aren'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm vaguely aware of a piece of software which contains both GFDL
> licensed material, and possibly code which was dropped in without
> actually checking the licence for compatibility with the GPL.
>
> A gargantuan number of people over the years have contributed code to
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:37:30PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I'm vaguely aware of a piece of software which contains both GFDL
> licensed material, and possibly code which was dropped in without
> actually checking the licence for compatibility with the GPL.
I'm not quite sure what you m
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:37:30PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> So here's a hypothetical situation; say the current upstream maintainer
> was to announce in a very public place, with Cc's to all known
> contributor e-mail addresses, his intent to change the licence of the
> code to GPL-2 (in
I'm vaguely aware of a piece of software which contains both GFDL
licensed material, and possibly code which was dropped in without
actually checking the licence for compatibility with the GPL.
A gargantuan number of people over the years have contributed code to
it, and many have claimed copyrigh
41 matches
Mail list logo
