John Cowan wrote:
> But in any case my point is that there is no bright line between
> a derivative and a collective work.
If you are looking for a bright line in copyright law, I'll agree that that
isn't it.
Here again is what you hypothesized: "Bob interweaves his code into Alice's
code (as in
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> I would guess that Bob's adding "a bunch of calls to syslog()" into
> Alice's work might create a derivative work of Alice's work, but that
> wouldn't convert "syslog()" itself a derivative work owned by either
> Alice or Bob, even if Bob statically linked it with Alice'
John Cowan asked:
> But suppose Bob takes Alice's program under the GPL and and
> adds a bunch of calls to syslog() so that it logs what it is doing
> (and suppose further that this is not a de minimis or merely
> mechanical change).
Hypotheticals are so easy to answer without committing malpra
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> I do so because my clients expect to profit (either financially or
> in reputation credits) for delivering comprehensive solutions that
> include FOSS components.
It's kind of hard to see how this could be the case for releasing a
compilation under the GPL. There's no
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> Does the distribution of a GPL-licensed work along with those "separate
> works" convert them into something "not separate" in the copyright
> sense? Does a staple or a paper clip or a book binding convert separate
> works to something not separate in the copyright sense
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> As I mentioned in a private thread, I didn't really see the need to
> burn Till's time posting here, since the discussion was a side-issue
> on the main thread about license compatibility, and an OSI director
> had already said "oh no, n
This is indeed depending on the case: people (developers) always declare (often
after the work has been done, and not before as it should be) that they "used"
products X,Y, Z. But what do they mean by "use"? Aggregating? Linking? Copying
only some APIs or data formats in order to ensure that sof
Nick Yeates asked:
> Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy
> from a business, social or other standpoint.
I do so because my clients expect to profit (either financially or in
reputation credits) for delivering comprehensive solutions that include FOSS
components. Th
Thanks Till, this was a very useful summary of the situation in Europe!
I believe you've begged the question, however, by saying this:
> Apparently, a computer program which is _not_ derived from
> GPL code has nonetheless to be licensed under the GPLv2 when
> the original GPL code and the prog
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote at 04:31 (EDT):
> Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European
> administrations and Member states) have build applications from
> multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a
> single license for distributing the whole co
I find it particularly objectionable that by providing my software free I
open myself to the possibility of financial attack.
I use something similar to the open source disclaimer for software I have
published but have added the following to it "IF THIS DISCLAIMER
CONTRADICTS LOCALLY APPLICABLE LA
Dear Till
Thank you for this - excellent - analysis.
You wrote:
The only hint you may find is Article 6 which says that decompilation is
allowed under certain circumstances to "achieve the interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs".
Written in 1991, the Dir
Nick Yeates wrote:>I too am curious what this "compilation license"ing is
and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn >asked, and Larry responded saying
basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did >not state *why*
he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other
>stan
13 matches
Mail list logo
