>That is, are you having trouble downloading license documents?
Anything being downloaded via ftp is very very slow when compared to those
that come along as email attachment.
>
>Are you wondering whether providing an e-mail responder is an appropriate
>way to provide access to source code as req
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> I am sorry, but these assertions are incorrect. Have you ever rented a car,
> purchased an airline ticket, acquired a credit card, or undertaken a number
> of transactions in modern life where you assent to the terms of a contract
> (call it a
I think David is right on target. He is pointing out an issue I have written
about in an article recently. There certainly are copyright qualities of
copyleft.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
David,
I completely agree with your point. This is a difficult issue. Copyeft is an
attempt to get around the scooping out problem. In doing so, it brings about
its own copyright problem.
Rod
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 24
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 5:35 PM
> To: W. Yip
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: "Violation"
>
>
> "W. Yip" wrote:
>
> > In the context of GPL, I wish to question whether there is
> > IANAL, but I agree with you. The GNU GPL and other open source
> "licenses"
> > (whether that term is justly applied to them is another matter)
> are in fact
> > conditional non-exclusive transfers of copyright. They are not
> contracts not only
> > for technical reasons (lack of considerati
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> Agreed. The difficulty, however, is that when something is added to the
> public domain (which is becoming more and more difficult), anyone can scoop
> it back out.
You can "scoop" as much as you want out of the public domain, but it
will stil
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Mark Koek wrote:
> The GPL is dishonest, then?
I didn't say that! Nowhere within it does it say it is not property,
and plenty of places where it acknowledges it is guarding a piece of
intellectual property. But I hear a lot of statements to the effect
that "copyleft is not
John Cowan writes:
> "W. Yip" wrote:
>
> > In the context of GPL, I wish to question whether there is a contract in
> > every case. The OSD s.7 'Distribution of License' stresses that no
> > subsequent execution of additional license is required for redistribution.
> > This implies that the OSS
"W. Yip" wrote:
> In the context of GPL, I wish to question whether there is a contract in
> every case. The OSD s.7 'Distribution of License' stresses that no
> subsequent execution of additional license is required for redistribution.
> This implies that the OSS License is 'automatic'. This giv
Agreed. The difficulty, however, is that when something is added to the
public domain (which is becoming more and more difficult), anyone can scoop
it back out. Copyleft attempts to foi this recursive conundrum, but it does
so in a manner not entirely appealing; that's why RMS has alientated so ma
> -Original Message-
> From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: "Violation"
>
> Thank you for the reply. I am aware of UCITA, though I cannot say I have a
> comprehensive understanding of it. From what you menti
David Johnson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, W. Yip wrote:
>
> > Conventional licenses are more restrictive, while OSS licenses
> > are so permissive, even 'viral', that the license threatens the very
> > foundations of the notion of copyright as property.
>
> I hope not! If no one owned emacs
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, W. Yip wrote:
> Conventional licenses are more restrictive, while OSS licenses
> are so permissive, even 'viral', that the license threatens the very
> foundations of the notion of copyright as property.
I hope not! If no one owned emacs or gcc, then there would be no one t
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:30:51 +1200, "j.Maxwell Legg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>W.Yip was referring specifically to alterations to a an old bare license that had no
>subject matter and was only a set of terms.
Hi. I am afraid you have misread me. I hope my subsequent postings serve to
clarify t
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:21:53 -0500, "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In a word, the answer to your question is NO.
>I am sure you have heard of "UCITA" by now. The purpose of this proposed
>uniform legislation is to set the ground rules for contracts involving
>information tran
Friends,
Getting downloads of source material via ftp is consuming a lot of internet
time, interrupted quite often by long silence and even loss of link.
Is there any way by which the requested matter can be sent as attachment via
e-mail ?
i.e., if I request for a download from a site, the request
17 matches
Mail list logo
