On Mar 27, 2:46 am, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Elvey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > E.g. Assume a user receives a binary-only copy of the firmware bundled
> > with a hardware device based on a GPL'd OS (no source or offer of
> > source is provided).
>
> This is a copyright vio
Ter, 2007-03-27 às 13:56 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Richard Tobin wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Yada, yada, yada. As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
> > >speak) were nonexistent not only in the G
Ter, 2007-03-27 às 14:30 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> >
> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
> > > speak) were nonexistent
> >
> > Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to ch
Ter, 2007-03-27 às 12:20 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> [snip bullshit]
>
> Yada, yada, yada. As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
> speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
Only if you distribute, or convey, or whatev
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> Note that only copyright owners have standing to sue.
Sonny, uncle Hasler has spoken!
True, since the Free Software Foundation (license drafter)
persistently claims for decades to the entire world that the GPL is a
license and not a contract, then it is really hard t
Ciarán O'Riordan writes:
> If a binary is available but no source, then that is a problem and the
> solution is to tell the distributor of the binary that they have to
> either cease distribution (and maybe pay damages) or start providing
> source code (and maybe also pay damages, or at least legal
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>> As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
>> speak) were nonexistent
>
>Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to check
>with a lawyer right now, but if there was such a loophole in the
>GPL, wouldn't someone have exploi
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
> > speak) were nonexistent
>
> Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to check with a
> lawyer right now, but if there was such a loophole in the GPL
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Yada, yada, yada. As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
> >speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
>
> That would only allow you to transfer you
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yada, yada, yada. As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
>speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
That would only allow you to transfer your copy, not make more copies.
-- Rich
> As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
> speak) were nonexistent
Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to check
with a lawyer right now, but if there was such a loophole in the
GPL, wouldn't someone have exploited it by now?
Fire sale doesn't come in
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
> speak) were nonexistent
Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not going to check with a
lawyer right now, but if there was such a loophole in the GPL, wouldn't
someone have exploited it b
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[snip bullshit]
Yada, yada, yada. As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@g
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[snip bullshit]
Yada, yada, yada. As if "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU
speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu
GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
E.g. Assume a user receives a binary-only copy of the firmware bundled
with a hardware device based on a GPL'd OS (no source or offer of
source is provided).
A copyriight violation, see Section 3 of the GNU GPL.
Does th
"Elvey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> E.g. Assume a user receives a binary-only copy of the firmware bundled
> with a hardware device based on a GPL'd OS (no source or offer of
> source is provided).
This is a copyright violation.
> Does the GPL give the user the right [...] to provide or obtain
http://lwn.net/Articles/227857/
A new GPLv3 timetable
[Posted March 26, 2007 by corbet]
From:Brett Smith
To: corbet-AT-lwn.net
Subject: GPLv3 timetable update
Date:Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:40:33 -0400
FYI: the information below is being sent to our info-gplv3 mailing lis
17 matches
Mail list logo
