> -Original Message-
> From: Pat St. Jean [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:15 AM
> To: John Muller
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: GPL and LGPL question - legal
>
> Which brings up an interesting question: what are some other nations'
> stances on
19May1999 09:07AM (-0500) From [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] psj [Pat St. Jean]
> I'm sorry you feel that way. Check the Linux kernel archives. I
> sent in a bunch of patches last year (early on) to update and
> improve the x86 CPU detection. I gave up BECAUSE of the GPL. I
> can't make any money off of
From: Clark Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Clark:
> I feel that if anyone is trying to make money from
> software that is GPL'd, then they obviously do not
> believe in the GPL, thus they really should not be
> using the GPL.
Clark,
Please, please consider that I have written or collaborated on more
On Wed, 19 May 1999, John Muller wrote:
>This statement might have been correct a few years ago, but the strong
>recent trend is to uphold the validity of shrinkwrap and clickwrap
>licenses.
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Patrick St. Jean wrote:
> That's great, but they don't apply to me. I'm in the 5th
On Wed, 19 May 1999, John Muller wrote:
>This statement might have been correct a few years ago, but the strong
>recent trend is to uphold the validity of shrinkwrap and clickwrap
>licenses. The leading case is ProCD v. Zeidenberg in the 7th Circuit,
>http://laws.findlaw.com/7th/961139.html, but
At 09:09 AM 5/19/99 -0500, Patrick St. Jean wrote:
>On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
>Did that law student take a look at some of the federal circuit court
>rulings concerning shrink-wrap licenses? The gist of them is that unless
>there is a signature on a document, they're pretty much wo
Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Clark Evans writes:
> > I feel that if anyone is trying to make money from
> > software that is GPL'd, then they obviously do not
> > believe in the GPL, thus they really should not be
> > using the GPL.
>
> I think you should amend this to "to make money from applying
Pat St. Jean writes:
> >> If you have some proprietary code which may ship alongside
> >> GPL'ed code, you may accidentally fall into the "derived work"
> >> category. Certainly, it is reasonable to be wary of this.
>
> Yup. You decide to give away a library that you use in other software
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 01:20:57PM +0100, Paul Crowley wrote:
> I'm finding the general license discussion here interesting, but I'm
> aware that by participating I'm taking part in the topic drift of what
> is supposed to be a clearly focused mailing list. It's been suggested
Clark Evans writes:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
> >
> > You can apply a proprietary license and the GPL to the work at the
> > same time, and distribute them to different customers. If you create
> > a new version under a proprietary license only, the GPL recepients
> > have no right to that version
Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> You can apply a proprietary license and the GPL to the work at the
> same time, and distribute them to different customers. If you create
> a new version under a proprietary license only, the GPL recepients
> have no right to that version.
Yikes! Discriminatory pricing
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:07:47AM -0500, Pat St. Jean wrote:
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way. Check the Linux kernel archives. I sent in
> a bunch of patches last year (early on) to update and improve the x86 CPU
> detection. I gave up BECAUSE of the GPL. I can't make any money off of
> that
From: "Pat St. Jean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I gave up BECAUSE of the GPL. I can't make any money off of
> that code with programs that I DON'T want to release the source for.
No, you have been given wrong information. You may apply any number of
licenses, in parallel, to your own work. You can ap
> I can't make any money off of
> that code with programs that I DON'T want to release the source for.
I think you may be suffering from a common misconception. As the
copyright holder, you may release your code under _any_number_ of
licenses _simultaneously_. The GPL does not tie your hands from
Yes, I will convert the thesis from wordperfect and put it up on the web.
I am speaking at Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich, and Rosati today (hope I got the
names right). I'll repeat that talk at a LinuxWorld BOF called "Calling All
Attortneys".
Bruce
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
>Re: the GPL standing up in court: a law student mailed me a 100+ page thesis
>on that topic. He said it would stand up in court. I have not yet had time to
>study his arguments thoroughly, too much travel. Hopefully I can do this next
>week.
Did that la
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
>Fred:
>> Protecting one's right to
>> share code by removing one's right not to doesn't seem like a Good
>> Thing to me.
>
>You're not considering the unpaid contributor. If my only choice was
>a license like the BSD, I would contribute a lot less.
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
>Wilfredo Sanchez writes:
>
>Well, that sort of scrutiny _has_ been applied to the GPL on many lists for
>many years, so that many people are sick of it. :-) Take a look at
>gnu.misc.discuss, and you should find such a thread fairly quickly.
Yeah, an
I'm finding the general license discussion here interesting, but I'm
aware that by participating I'm taking part in the topic drift of what
is supposed to be a clearly focused mailing list. It's been suggested
that we rename the mailing list to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
try and emphasise that narrow
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FSF will never strike LGPL #3 . It would go against their stated goal
> of having all software free for them to do so.
Further, to distribute a program that combined GPL and LGPL-#3 code
would be a violation of the GPL (where LGPL-#3 means a license
iden
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Re: the GPL standing up in court: a law student mailed me a 100+ page thesis
> on that topic. He said it would stand up in court. I have not yet had time to
> study his arguments thoroughly, too much travel. Hopefully I can do this next
> week.
Can you
21 matches
Mail list logo
