Qua, 2007-03-28 às 14:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
P.S. To mini-RMS: piss off you first sale is not distributing
clinical case.
I never said that. What I said is that First Sale doesn't relate to
distributing copies you make from your copy. If it did, I double dare
you into offering
Installation Information
In our earlier drafts we devoted much care to devising a detailed
technical definition of the cryptographic information that would
enable GPL licensees to install functioning modified versions,
without affecting legitimate uses of encryption. The result was a
Inherently Unmodifiable Copies
We do not object to the practice of conveying object code in a mode not
practically susceptible to modification by any party, such as code
burned in ROM or embedded in silicon. What we find ethically
objectionable is the refusal to pass on to the downstream
Network Access and Other Limitations
The definition of Installation Information states that the information
provided must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the
modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely
because modification has been made. We did
Standing ovations to Eben! :-)
quote
User Products
In our earlier drafts, the requirement to provide encryption keys
applied to all acts of conveying object code, as this requirement was
part of the general definition of Corresponding Source. Section 6 of
Draft 3 now limits the applicability
Paracopyright
What was the second paragraph of section 3 in Draft 2, concerning so-
called anticircumvention law, has been broken up into two paragraphs.
In the first paragraph we have replaced the reference to the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, a United States statute, with a corresponding
Ephemeral Propagation
Some have expressed concern that our technical restrictions provisions
would extend to such cases as the ordinary use of a walkup Internet
kiosk. We do not believe ephemeral propagation of this sort should
amount to conveying anywhere, and are confident that it is not
Patents
Software patenting is a harmful and unjust policy, and should be
abolished; recent experience makes this all the more evident. Since
many countries grant patents that can apply to and prohibit software
packages, in various guises and to varying degrees, we seek to protect
the users of
FYI, their (Adaptec Support's) latest response:
The GPL conforms to Open Source and the Guardian Operating system is
not Open Source. It uses a Linux base but is Adaptec intellectual
property with our own code compiled specifically for Snap Appliances.
If you'd like to speak about GPL conformance
Elvey wrote:
FYI, their (Adaptec Support's) latest response:
Send GNU legal beagle Eben on them, Elvey. They will capitulate
immediately. :-)
regards,
alexander.
--
Its odd that PJ would duck a subpoena because she says shes a
paralegal and has a high respect for the legal system.
--
While there is no doubt that software patent does stifle innovation,
the GPL's blanket anti-patent approach does not really help promote
free software. Like any kind of weapon, it is only bad if it is used
irresponsibly. So how could a software patent be good for GPL?
The answer is simple: When
11 matches
Mail list logo
