Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> I said that it certainly allowed linking. And guess what, it does. But
> you can't license your own product under certain terms as, for instance,
> the GNU GPL. The license actually imposes a certain set of additional
> restrictions like keeping your work pro
Seg, 2006-06-26 às 20:53 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > DirectX's license certainly allows linking said software with other
> > licenses or it wouldn't be used at all.
>
> Uh, you made me waste half a gig of bandwidth to download the SDK.
>
> Guess what? MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > External factors are totally irrelevant. Copyright is about expression,
> > not dependencies. No MS DirectX program can function without MS DirectX
> > (broken and incomplete WINE stuff aside for a moment), but that doesn't
> > make DirectX programs derivat
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> One problem is that this "another legal person" is likely acting as
> your agent.
Uh. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you can even prove
existence of agreement between us two. Cry conspiracy. Won't help.
There was no law or contract broken. All actions
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Not really. Judges don't cherish circumvention,
There's no circumvention. Remember that another legal person is in
full compliance. And there's no contract between me and copyright
owners in GPL'd stuff that would prevent distribution of my copies
as I see fit (i
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Sure, and you can then resell this CD if you want to. What you can't
>> do is make additional copies and sell those without adhering to the
>> license.
>
> Another legal persons makes copies. And he is in total compl
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Sure, and you can then resell this CD if you want to. What you can't
> do is make additional copies and sell those without adhering to the
> license.
Another legal persons makes copies. And he is in total compliance. I
just distribute those lawfully made copies (he
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> I think that the problem here is one of ownership. How can you claim
> the ownership of a copy if there is no payment and the content has not
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html
> been
Seg, 2006-06-26 às 17:52 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Byron A Jeff wrote:
> [...]
> > I took it to mean that he started with the LGPL code base and added code
> > to it. I also took it to mean that his code could not function
> > independantly from the original LGPL code base.
>
> Externa
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Be sure to keep the sales receipt for the copy you choose to _pass_
>> _on_ in order to show that you bought a copy from the copyright holder
>> or someone acting in his behalf.
>
> Sales receipt is not needed. You wo
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Finally, here's what copyright.gov had to say on the subject:
>
> "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
> form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
> DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the sam
Byron A Jeff wrote:
[...]
> I took it to mean that he started with the LGPL code base and added code
> to it. I also took it to mean that his code could not function
> independantly from the original LGPL code base.
External factors are totally irrelevant. Copyright is about expression,
not depe
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wow! The Eye of the Empire has finally turn to little ole me!
>Byron A Jeff wrote:
>[...]
>> Which would be accomplished by releasing your code as LGPL since your
>> code is derivative from original LGPL code.
I think
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Be sure to keep the sales receipt for the copy you choose to _pass_
> _on_ in order to show that you bought a copy from the copyright holder
> or someone acting in his behalf.
Sales receipt is not needed. You would have to prove that my copy was
not "lawfully made" (
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Creating your own copies is not covered under first sale.
First sale covers "lawfully made" copies. To quote Hollaar,
-
As for the reproduction right (1) implying the distribution right (3),
it's not an implication, but a special rule in United States copyright
l
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> [...]
>> not accept the terms of the license, but if you do not accept them
>> default copyright law is in force, and you may not distribute or
>> modify the Program.
>
> Go read the default copyright law is in force, idi
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> not accept the terms of the license, but if you do not accept them
> default copyright law is in force, and you may not distribute or
> modify the Program.
Go read the default copyright law is in force, idiot. Both actions
are permitted by the default copyright
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Or dear. How much will you pay me for a CD full of GPL'd binaries
>(and no source code at all) which I'm going to distribute to you
>under contractual agreement imposing forbearance from exercising
>the rights granted to you under th
Byron A Jeff wrote:
[...]
> Which would be accomplished by releasing your code as LGPL since your
> code is derivative from original LGPL code.
OP said that "We got a new library by modifying the LGPL code and
adding some our own code." Modified LGPL code aside for a moment, what
makes you think
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Or dear. How much will you pay me for a CD full of GPL'd binaries
>(and no source code at all) which I'm going to distribute to you
>under contractual agreement imposing forbearance from exercising
>the rights granted to you under the GPL by the copyri
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Claude Yih <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thanks for your kindness~~~
No problem. Glad to help out.
>> > Of course, we know that we should distribute our library under
>> > LGPL too.
>> Not necessarily. It all depends on the interaction between the
> original LGPL c
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Cf. http://gpl-violations.org/> for examples.
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html
It's a Small Welte After All
Across the wide ocean, other enforcement of the GPL runs along a
different trail. Harald Welte, a self-appointed enforcer of the GPL
who operate
Or dear. How much will you pay me for a CD full of GPL'd binaries
(and no source code at all) which I'm going to distribute to you
under contractual agreement imposing forbearance from exercising
the rights granted to you under the GPL by the copyright owners?
You are free to distribut
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
> [...]
>> Hardly. No GPL licensed software is being distributed with further
>> restrictions.
>
> Or dear. How much will you pay me for a CD full of GPL'd binaries
> (and no source code at all) which I'm going to dis
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[...]
> Hardly. No GPL licensed software is being distributed with further
> restrictions.
Or dear. How much will you pay me for a CD full of GPL'd binaries
(and no source code at all) which I'm going to distribute to you
under contractual agreement imposing forbe
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:05:13 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Karen Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The freedom license states that if you own the copyright a piece of
GPL software, you have permission to relicense the "Freedom License
Software" to the GPL but in exchange yo
26 matches
Mail list logo
