On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:10:37PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > While fairly simple, it is totally incorrect, as public distribution in
> > breach of copyright carries criminal liability in England, as I previously
> > posted. See the Copyright Designs and Patents Act as ame
MJ Ray wrote:
> While fairly simple, it is totally incorrect, as public distribution in
> breach of copyright carries criminal liability in England, as I previously
> posted. See the Copyright Designs and Patents Act as amended, under
> the criminal liability heading. http://www.jenkins-ip.com/pat
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] If it is a
> license from the copyright holders, than the only ones who can sue
> Debian for distribution of sourceless GPL'ed works are, er, the people
> who originally gave out those works in that form. I understand there is
> some contention aroun
On 10/17/06 15:06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> you're not a lawyer.
I agree.
Out of curiosity, I
Francesco Poli writes:
> What makes you think that every and each copyright holder acted in good
> faith when started to distribute firmware under the terms of the GNU GPL
> v2, while keeping the source code secret?
> Some copyright holder could be deliberately preparing a trap, in order
> to be a
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:06:19 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
[...]
> > baring competent legal advice to the contrary,[1] distributing
> > sourceless GPLed works is not clear of legal liability. Doing
> > otherwise may put ourselves and our mirror operat
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
> >
> > Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to menti
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> you're not a lawyer.
That should not keep him from being concerned when t
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> you're not a lawyer.
Yes, I'm not a lawyer. Do not rely on anything
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
> >
> > Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to ne
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention
> that you're not a lawyer.
That should be abundantly a
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
> distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
> distribute *only* if we dist
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
distribute *only* if we distribute source. So, GPLed sourceless == NO
PERMISSON.
I will list the usua
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
>> don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
>> believe that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights
>> under t
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> So the real question is whether we want to do that, whether in the
> particular cases there's in fact any doubt, etc.
A quick survey based on the size of the firmware blobs suggests 1/3 of them
may be register dumps, while 2/3 are mos
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
> >> don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
> >> beli
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
> don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
> believe that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights
> under the GPL are lost if you cannot abide by all point
18 matches
Mail list logo
