On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:49:49 -0800, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>By releasing under the GPL, the original authors surrendered their
>right to control GPL-compatible copying. Having surrendered that
>right, the original authors are not able to transfer it.
Mattel's lawyers would ce
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:50:02 +1000, Andrew J Bromage
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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_ revoke the GPL on cphack if I've obtained my copy after the
>
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:47:29 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But it turns out that that's not what they meant. The Wired article is just
>written poorly. Someone on Slashdot quoted the actual law that they *were*
>referring to:
Having gone through the following, I still fa
"W. Yip" wrote:
> Just so as to ensure we are on the same wavelength, my understanding of
> what is an 'exclusive license' is that '...with an exclusive license, the
> licensee is given the right to perform specified acts to the exclusion of
> all others *including the (copyright owner)'* [1]
Th
Dear All,
My book will be my publisher's first to include open source licensed code.
(The book is "Cryptography for Visual Basic: A Programmer's Guide to the
Microsoft CryptoAPI", and includes open source COM wrappers for the
CryptoAPI.) Can someone help me with the following questions please?
On Thursday 30 March 2000, W. Yip
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:47:29 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>But it turns out that that's not what they meant. The Wired article is just
>>written poorly. Someone on Slashdot quoted the actual law that they *w
Although we are getting far afield from the structure of open-source
licenses, there seem to be some procedural and technical steps someone could
take to ensure that a license is perpetuated, especially for
digitally-conveyed works and licenses to those works.
There are moves afoot to establish t
Richard Bondi wrote:
> 1) I think this belongs on an FAQ at www.opensource.org: if I use one of
> the approved licenses, can I rename it? I'm going to use the Ricoh license
> for my book's code; can I call it the Wiley Open Source Public License
> everywhere?
Nobody is likely to sue you. The GP
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
> I notice that the EULA I am looking at right now is not "signed" although I
> have every reason to believe that it is authentic.
The statutory requirement applies to copyright licenses, which the GPL is
but the EULA is not.
--
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um die
According to W . Yip:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:49:49 -0800, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >By releasing under the GPL, the original authors surrendered their
> >right to control GPL-compatible copying. Having surrendered that
> >right, the original authors are not able to transfer
According to Mark Wielaard:
> But the main document (the actual essay cp4break.html) says:
> "The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it."
> "You are allowed to mirror this document and the related files anywhere you
> see fit."
Well, that about wraps it up for Mattel. Or i
According to W . Yip:
> A purchaser, particularly a bona fide one, may not know anything
> about the licenses attached to a copyright which he is purchasing,
> and thus deserves protection from copyright holders who may be
> dishonest.
Surely, though, that theory doesn't help Mattel -- they *did*
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> But I would consider it obvious that, once I have been granted me a
> license to copy, neither the original copyright holder nor his assigns
> have the authority to stop me. In other words, the license adheres to
> the code, not the author.
Not obvious, probably not tru
I'm sure it's not, but someone please explain to me why not.
If the GPL is just a grant under copyright law, and not a contract, then
why can't I do the following:
-- I get a copy of a GPL'd work called "SSP" (some software program)
-- I am legally entitled to make private derivative copi
According to John Cowan:
> Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author.
>
> A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely
> revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if
> the landowner changes his mind, the
Justin Wells wrote:
> The GPL says that if I "distribute" copies then I must provide source. I,
> however, maintain that I am doing no such thing--I am *selling* copies,
> transfering my ownership of that copy to someone else, not distributing
> them.
The term "distribute" must be understood in
I looked at what I could find on Wired, thanks to the Slashdot discussion
and its links.
1. UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS?
One problem I notice is that we don't have a finding with regard to the
validity of the copyright by the original distributors of cphack. Part of
the Mattel claim was that this wor
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:52:38PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> The term "distribute" must be understood in the sense in which it is
> used in the Copyright Act. The term is not actually defined there, but
> is used thus: "distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work
> to the public
Justin Wells writes:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:52:38PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>
> > The term "distribute" must be understood in the sense in which it is
> > used in the Copyright Act. The term is not actually defined there, but
> > is used thus: "distribute copies or phonorecords of the c
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chip Salzenberg writes:
>According to John Cowan:
>> Chip Salzenberg wrote:
>> > In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author.
>>
>> A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely
>> revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:56:54PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Mmmm, I think you're glossing over what "your copy" means here. I imagine
> that you're referring to the "first sale" doctrine, which restricts the
> ability of copyright holders to restrict resale of copies _that they
> sell_.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely
> > revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if
> > the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a
> > trespasser.
> I never thought I'd say t
According to Nils Lohner:
> This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license
> is changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license?
No, no, you've confused license with contract. If you buy the
software, then there is an exchange of considerations, so there
is a (sale) co
Nils Lohner wrote:
> This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is
> changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? I would argue that I
> should have to abide by the license under which I bought it as I have never
> had a chance to acept or reject the other lice
On Thursday 30 March 2000, Nils Lohner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chip Salzenberg writes:
>>According to John Cowan:
>>> Chip Salzenberg wrote:
>>> > In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author.
>>>
>>> A license that isn't a contract (a bare
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random
> proprietary license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain
> actions provided you meet certain conditions. The actions are copying,
> distributing, and making derivative works.
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
> Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly.
> You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on
> distribution, for instance -- or you don't, and if you don't, you have no
> legal recourse for distribution.
You
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:39:10PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random proprietary
> license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain actions provided you
> meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, distributing, and
> makin
Justin Wells wrote:
>
> The consensus on the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has been
> that you should draft a license which you think fits the definition
> and simply start using it. If your software is important enough to
> draw attention, then sooner or later someone will be interested in
> seeing
At 07:18 PM 3/30/00 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>Justin Wells wrote:
> >
> > The consensus on the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has been
> > that you should draft a license which you think fits the definition
> > and simply start using it. If your software is important enough to
> > draw attention, the
30 matches
Mail list logo
