-dtag-sign-de.txt ]
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-
boun...@opensource.org] Im Auftrag von Ben Tilly
Gesendet: Montag, 9. März 2015 21:45
An: License Discuss
Betreff: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering
-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and
Open Source Licenses
There is a significant problem with the abbreviated version that you
wish I had said. I believe your analysis is wrong when you concluded
that dynamic linking is enough to escape the reverse engineering
provision
I will respond inline this time because the conversation got complicated.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reincke, Karsten k.rein...@telekom.de wrote:
Many thanks for your detailed description. Indeed, I am sorry that we are
reciprocally frustrated with us.
But I do not want to give up. Let
On 06/03/15 09:09, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
Why do I only say ‘very similar’ instead of ‘equal’. The problem with your
summary is this: you do not talk about the license text! Your term “combined
work” DOES NOT OCOUR in
The problem with your approach is that you do not talk about the spirit
Well, the provided text in the document does not appear to me to be
conclusive that permitting reverse engineering is not required from LGPL
users. There¹s interesting analysis of the wording but the real ³missing
step² for me would be that your analysis would actually hold up in a court
of law.
-Original Message-
From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 8:29 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open
Source Licenses
Well, the provided text in the document does not appear to me
[mailto:ftf-legal-
boun...@fsfeurope.org] Im Auftrag von Ben Tilly
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 03:51
An: License Discuss
Cc: karen.copenha...@gmail.com; ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org; Schwegler,
Robert
Betreff: Re: [FTF-Legal] [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and
Open Source Licenses
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open
Source Licenses
Well, the provided text in the document does not appear to me to be
conclusive that permitting reverse engineering is not required from LGPL
users. There¹s interesting analysis
-
boun...@fsfeurope.org] Im Auftrag von Ben Tilly
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 03:51
An: License Discuss
Cc: karen.copenha...@gmail.com; ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org; Schwegler,
Robert
Betreff: Re: [FTF-Legal] [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and
Open Source Licenses
Sorry
, 2015 9:37 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; License Discuss
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [FTF-Legal] Reverse Engineering and Open Source
Licenses
Dear Larry
I have no doubt about your legal expertise and experience, but I think
generally speaking using something legally reverse-engineered in one
10 matches
Mail list logo
