On 2007-11-24, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> On 2007-11-21, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously "all third
>>> parties". Clearly the plaintiffs are "parties" to the GPL contract and
>>> cannot be a member of the
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> On 2007-11-24, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tim Smith wrote:
> >> On 2007-11-21, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously "all third
> >>> parties". Clearly the plaintiffs are "parties" to the GPL contract and
Tim Smith wrote:
On 2007-11-24, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
On 2007-11-21, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously "all third
parties". Clearly the plaintiffs are "parties" to the GPL contract and
cannot be a member of
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
See also:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf
(Artistic License is a contract)
"the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim properly sounds in contract"
The Court ruled in the JMRI case (supra):
"Although the state claims are subject to dismissal on the merits
DS> You will [not] find anything about
DS> "larger programs" or linking in copyright law.
You will, however, find a definition of an "adaptation" of a computer
program in section 21 of the U.K. Copyrights, Designs, and Patents Act
(as amended).
___
gnu-m
On Nov 26, 9:30 am, J de Boyne Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> DS> You will [not] find anything about
> DS> "larger programs" or linking in copyright law.
> You will, however, find a definition of an "adaptation" of a computer
> program in section 21 of the U.K. Copyrights, Designs, and Pate
