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
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
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
"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
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
"Karen Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is how the Freedom License works. Suppose a person creates a
> program under the BSD license and then someone comes along, modifies
> it a bit and releases the result as GPL. Here's how the Freedom
> License works. You create a piece of really val
Karen Hill wrote:
> Take a look at my "Freedom License". The GPL is vulnerable in one
> particular way.
The GPL does not suit everyones' needs. There are some people who just
feel happier with M$ software complete with a EULA including a freedom
clause - one that allows the BSA to bang down yo
Amanjit Gill wrote:
>
> - I am looking for a BSD-style license, that is as BSD-compatible as
> possible but practically prohibits "relicensing" the work under the GPL
> or GPL-compatible licenses. I basically found bits of code that was
> initially released under a BSD license, but somehow years
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>> The Modifed BSD license are in no way `incompatible' with the GNU
>> GPL. It is listed as a GPL-Compatible, Free software licenses.
>> The
>
>[...] Here is a kind of a hint for you...
>
> A hint which has not relation to the Modifed BSD license an
> The Modifed BSD license are in no way `incompatible' with the GNU
> GPL. It is listed as a GPL-Compatible, Free software licenses.
> The
[...] Here is a kind of a hint for you...
A hint which has not relation to the Modifed BSD license and its
compatibility with the GNU GPL.
An
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> The Modifed BSD license are in no way `incompatible' with the GNU GPL.
> It is listed as a GPL-Compatible, Free software licenses. The
GNU.org may list whatever RMS wants as (in)compatible to the GPL. Here
is a kind of a hint for you...
http://www.linuxrising.org
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>> From the BSD license:
>>
>> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>>notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>noti
I wrote:
> From the BSD license:
>
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>notice, this list of conditions and the following dis
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> The original copyright owner is still able to sue if his software is used
>> without license. The license he granted to the person using it in the
>> GPLed software (which might have been bought at a high price) does not
>> magica
David Kastrup writes:
> The original copyright owner is still able to sue if his software is used
> without license. The license he granted to the person using it in the
> GPLed software (which might have been bought at a high price) does not
> magically extend to third recipients unless the redis
The Modifed BSD license are in no way `incompatible' with the GNU GPL.
It is listed as a GPL-Compatible, Free software licenses. The
Original BSD license is incompatbile with the GNU GPL due to the
`obnoxious BSD advertising clause', but it is a free software license.
___
Amanjit Gill wrote:
[...]
> possible but practically prohibits "relicensing" the work under the GPL
The BSD does NOT allow "relicensing" the BSD (including BSD derivative)
work under the GPL in the source code form. That pretty much makes it
"incompatible" (in GNU land) with the GPL, but RMS & Co.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The original copyright owner is still able to sue if his software is
>used without license. The license he granted to the person using it
>in the GPLed software (which might have been bought at a high price)
>does not magi
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>> The derivative work created by combining BSD and GPL code may only be
>> distributed under the GPL, but you can pull out the BSD stuff (assuming
>> you can't find the original BSD code elsewhere) and redistribute it under
>> the BSD.
>
> David
I wrote:
> The derivative work created by combining BSD and GPL code may only be
> distributed under the GPL, but you can pull out the BSD stuff (assuming
> you can't find the original BSD code elsewhere) and redistribute it under
> the BSD.
David Kastrup writes:
> Says who?
Copyright law.
> If
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Amanjit Gill writes:
>> Yes, but as soon as it ends up as being GPL it can never go back to BSD.
>
> No. Code released under the BSD license remains under the BSD
> license. The derivative work created by combining BSD and GPL code
> may only be distribu
Amanjit Gill writes:
> I just wanted to make sure that in future my glorious ;) (piece of
> software can be used in a commercial app without any problems.
The GPL does not forbid commercial use. Ever heard of Red Hat?
> So closed source usage does not bother me, but it must be possible
So you w
Amanjit Gill writes:
> Yes, but as soon as it ends up as being GPL it can never go back to BSD.
No. Code released under the BSD license remains under the BSD license.
The derivative work created by combining BSD and GPL code may only be
distributed under the GPL, but you can pull out the BSD stuf
"Amanjit Gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup schrieb:
>
>> That is the wrong reason to like the GPL/LGPL, since both of them
>> guarantee the freedom to change the code.
>
> Yes, but again nobody really changes platform / infrastructure code
> _behaviour_ or high level interface _con
> So use the LGPL with an added restriction (which will make it incompatible
> with the GPL).
Yeah, so I could do LGPL+restriction / GPL dual licensing. Hmm not
nice. First of all I will reconsider if GPL is really a no-no for me.
> incompatible. Ok. Use the BSD license and add a GPL-incompati
David Kastrup schrieb:
> That is the wrong reason to like the GPL/LGPL, since both of them
> guarantee the freedom to change the code.
Yes, but again nobody really changes platform / infrastructure code
_behaviour_ or high level interface _contracts_ on a daily basis. You
do not gain anything, e
Amanjit Gill writes:
> I pretty much dislike the GPL (and LGPL because of the clause that you
> can "relicense" the work under the GPL) for everything else, i.e.
> Applications.
So use the LGPL with an added restriction (which will make it incompatible
with the GPL).
> I am looking for a BSD-styl
"Amanjit Gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - I really like the GNU GPL and LGPL for software that corresponds
> to infrastructure (i.e. things that should be provided on any
> system, and must be "free" and interoperatable because it is so easy
> for software to be incompatible (you only need to
Hi there,
- I really like the GNU GPL and LGPL for software that corresponds to
infrastructure (i.e. things that should be provided on any system, and
must be "free" and interoperatable because it is so easy for software
to be incompatible (you only need to change one byte).
- I pretty much disl
42 matches
Mail list logo
