"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> Under copyright, display and public performance rights may be reserved,
> but these rights are not claimed (or rather, are disclaimed) by the GPL.
> Or at least that's the conventional wisdom understanding of:
>
> GPL v2 0:
>
> Activit
"Carol A. Kunze" wrote
> The GPL does more than grant additional rights. It also places an
> important limitation on a user's right to license derivative works in
> which she owns the copyright.
There is no such right in the general case. ยง103 of Title 17 reads, in
part:
> (a) The subject ma
"Ravicher, Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
> From: David Johnson
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > I would say that they're absolutely correct! The GPL even backs me up
> > on this one. If you don't agree with the license, then you don't have
> > to
Tom Oehser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What I don't like is other people just copying the *actual binary*
> without giving any credit or acknoledgement that *they* don't want to
> bother to compile it *themselves*. As long as they mention where they
> got it, I'm
> fine with it.
>
> So, in the
"Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I was trying to point out that you CAN'T ALLOW someone to use your name
> -- e.g., ALL uses, even friendly ones, are misuses -- because it is YOUR
> trademark and not theirs. If you allow a third party who creates a
> derivative work to market that de
Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm saying two things: if you create a derivative work
> from my code, then the license says if you change the behavior of the
> functions or macros, etc., defined in my .h, that you must call it
> something else. However, if you keep the same interface (
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ) It may certainly be possible to have a [requirement that derivative
> > works
> > ) be licensed under the GPL] for Open Source software. I am not
> > denying
> > ) that. However, until such a time as the [requirement that derivative
> > ) works be lic
David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> It may certainly be possible to have a registration fee for Open Source
> software. I am not denying that. However, until such a time as the
> registration fee is paid, the software cannot be considered Open Source.
> If a
> registration fee were allowed
"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it
> > clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software
> > you are required to pay $x to xyz inc.
> >
> Nope.
>
> Violates #7: "The rights attached to the progra
"Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> When you make a function call in compile-time linked code, you are
> creating a derivative work, because the function code itself will be
> compiled into the Program and inextricably combined with your code.
> When the two are separated by a run-time
Brian DeSpain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Yes - but the previous versions licensed under the GPL remain GPLd and
> development can continue on the code.
Can you explain why this is the case?
> > In reality, the code would most likely *fork,* leaving one strand open
> > and the other proprietary.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> I believe OSD section 7 may cover that:
>
> 7. Distribution of License.
>
> The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
> program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
> additional license by those parties.
>
> =2E..
"Lionello Lunesu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> It reminds of something I did in my childhood (I must have been 12 years
> old or so). Somebody gave me a collection of comics that he knew I
> liked. I read most but when I got tired of them I try to sell them in a
> yard sale. Then my brother point
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I don't see how this follows.
>
> You don't see how what follows? That linking is a corrolate of Mai v.
> Peak, or the principles established in Mai v. Peak?
That linking has anything to do with Mai v. Peak.
:
> > Mai v Peak establishes th
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, David Johnson wrote:
>
> On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts have
> > held, in Mai v. Peak) a program in memory meets the fixed and tangible
> > requirements of copyright law, an
[list of submitted licenses]
> * ATT Graphviz: not posted?
I believe this is the same as the following:
> * ATT Source Code Agreement Version 1.2D:
> http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/
> * ATT graphviz Binary Software Agreement:
> http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/gra
16 matches
Mail list logo
