On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:39:24AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Be sure to distinguish the following:
>
>* copyright in the original work (you apparently own that)
>* copyright in the contributions (contributors own that)
>* copyright in derivative works you create (you own that)
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:05:56PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> begin Chris D. Sloan quotation:
> > Assume there is a program called foo which is licensed under GPL v. 2
> > or, at your option any later version. Can I make a change to that
> > program and release [my] version
On the GPL FAQ, there is a question:
If a programming language interpreter is released under the
GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it
must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
You can see the answer at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:26:02PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> begin Justin Wells quotation:
>
> [FSF:]
>
> > Its adversarity, say Microsoft Corp., has different ideas about how
> > the GPL v3 should be worded... for example, allowing Microsoft (and
> > only Microsoft) to incorporate all GPL'd sof
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:35:37PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> begin Kenny Tilton quotation:
> > What exactly does it do for FSF to lock up the GNU GPL that way?
>
> My guess is that it gains some standard of identity for its licence.
> That is, nobody can legally create "Fred's GPL" or "Fred's Fre
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 11:16:43AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> As is well known, I think the "otherwise using" part of clause 8
> is mere flatus vocis: using software you lawfully own can't impose
> any contract requirement on you.
Can obtaining that copy impose restrictions on use, though?
In ot
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 02:11:41PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:58:54AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> > Currently OSD #1 reads:
> > The license shall not restrict any party from selling
> >
Sorry about that. I accidently sent the message while it was incomplete...
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 06:04:47PM -0800, Chris D. Sloan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:59:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
>
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:59:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
> contract of adhesion (one-sided) as a Microsoft EULA.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 06:45:54PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> David Johnson scripsit:
>
> > A menu at
For the concrete example of Microsoft using parts of Linux, they would
legally have to release the source of Windows under the GPL. This
will *never* happen while pigs remain land bound animals, but if it
did, I'm sure that the Free Software Foundation (and anyone who
believes in the philosophy w
As I understand it, John was not saying that the person who buys a CD
with a copy of Linux (or whatever) now owns a copyright or anything
like that, but that they own the copy of the data itself.
Similarly, I own many books. Some of them I bought, some were given
to me, it doesn't really matter
11 matches
Mail list logo
