On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 08:11:01PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Aaron Turner wrote:
> > Wired has a rather interesting article on the GPL in relation to the suit
> > by Mattel re: cphack. I was wondering what people thought of the merrits
> > of the statements, and specifica
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Aaron Turner wrote:
> Wired has a rather interesting article on the GPL in relation to the suit
> by Mattel re: cphack. I was wondering what people thought of the merrits
> of the statements, and specifically what I as a developer need to do to
> protect my works from such lo
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, W.Yip wrote:
> For my part, I do not understand how the question of assignment of rights
> to FSF fits into the picture. ( as reported in the wired.com article)
> Surely if J and S has assigned copyright to FSF, then it is impossible for
> them to contract with M at all? I won
On Tue, 28 Mar 100 23:34:31 -0500 (EST), John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>W. Yip scripsit:
>> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that only one
>> who owns the copyright can issue a license, hence in the case of
>> conventional licenses, the licensee cannot sublicense
> B. Are J + S in breach of contract? J + S sign contractual agreement with M
> to transfer 'all rights, if any' to M. This means exclusive copyright. But
> so long as the GPL perpetuates further redistribution, it is possible that
> M has not obtained 'all rights, if any'.
"All available rights
According to Andrew J Bromage:
> Will I or won't I be able to join the inevitable class action for
> breach of contract against M if they _do_ revoke the GPL on cphack
> if I've obtained my copy after the lawsuit was filed?
[IANAL] I suspect you'd be eligible even if you got it now, as long as
yo
"W. Yip" wrote:
> A. Is revocation by M possible?
Here's what I wrote on another list this morning:
Subject: open source licence non-revocability
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:55:29 -0400
From: Ian Grigg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL P
G'day all.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:11:20AM +0100, W. Yip wrote:
> Fellas, this seems to be the type of dispute we have been waiting for.
Is it too late to grab a copy of cphack now? Will I or won't I be able
to join the inevitable class action for breach of contract against M if
they _do_ r
According to W . Yip:
> So long as the GPL perpetuates further redistribution, it is
> possible that M has not obtained 'all rights, if any'.
[IANAL]
By releasing under the GPL, the original authors surrendered their
right to control GPL-compatible copying. Having surrendered that
right, the or
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:12:50 -0800 (PST), Aaron Turner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Wired has a rather interesting article on the GPL in relation to the suit
>by Mattel re: cphack. [snip]
Fellas, this seems to be the type of dispute we have been waiting for.
Microsystems Software and Mattel, in
Wired has a rather interesting article on the GPL in relation to the suit
by Mattel re: cphack. I was wondering what people thought of the merrits
of the statements, and specifically what I as a developer need to do to
protect my works from such loopholes. Ie, how do I sign over my rights to
th
"W. Yip" wrote:
> License: This is an abstract form of permission, granted to make lawful
> what would otherwise be unlawful [...].
> Bare License: You own land, and grant a license to someone to enter it.
Thanks for the definitions.
Thus a copyright license such as "You have the right to make
Sorry. Some dreadful typos in the following paragraph I fortunately noticed
and have corrected.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:40:02 +0100, "W. Yip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Example of overlap; You own land. You build a cinema on it. You show movies
>in the cinema. You sell movie tickets. A person who
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:34:34 -0800, David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'm starting to get confused. What exactly is the difference between a
>license and a contract? Where does one draw the line? Is there some
>legal concept here, or is this just some random and arbitrary ruling?
The lice
I agree. RMS is using language in an atypical manner so it's tricky to grasp
what he is saying upon a first reading. RMS has told me he is not in favor
of de-linking copyright from software. In other words, copyleft is in fact
an alternative version of copyright. RMS told me he does not support s
Simply stated, a license is a contract. The confusion often arises because
software licenses come in essentially two forms: a) traditional license
(e.g., Microsoft used a traditional license with OEMs regarding the
pre-install of its OS) and 2) a copyright license (like the GPL). Further
complicat
16 matches
Mail list logo
