Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

September 18, 2015 1:01 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations Pamela Chestek scripsit: > Without entering into that quagmire [...] my use of the word "contract" > was simply inapt. The principle app

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

Pamela Chestek scripsit: > Without entering into that quagmire [...] my use of the word "contract" > was simply inapt. The principle applies in the interpretation of all > types legal documents. Sure. But if it is not meaningless, what does it mean? Since the right of an owner to revoke a

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

On 9/16/2015 11:32 PM, John Cowan wrote: >> Doesn't that mean that the word "irrevocable" is meaningless? We don't >> like words without meaning in contracts, especially one so central to >> the entire premise of free software. > It's my view (and I'm not alone in this) that the vast majority of

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

On 9/5/2015 2:24 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Pamela Chestek scripsit: > >> I think this statement is a fallacy, but I'm happy to hear other >> opinions. A license attaches to the intangible copyright, not to the >> tangible copy of the work you received. So as long as I can show that >> the same

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

On 9/8/2015 5:14 PM, Kevin Fleming wrote: > The genesis of my statement (which I purposely left ambiguous because > IANAL and IANYL and many here are) is that a set of source files that > do not have any copyright/license statements included and a set that > do have such statements included could

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

On 9/6/2015 1:03 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > >> What non-GPL things are you talking about? > Insofar as I can reconstruct my thinking of last night (post in > haste, repent at leisure), I was thinking of the ordinary proprietary > opt-out clause letting you incorporate

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

Pamela Chestek scripsit: > This is one of my favorite subjects, whether to have a license you need > to know that it existed at the time you copied or not. I don't think so, > the copyright owner put the work out there with a promise not to sue, so > I don't know why I would need to be aware of

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

Pamela Chestek scripsit: > Doesn't that mean that the word "irrevocable" is meaningless? We don't > like words without meaning in contracts, especially one so central to > the entire premise of free software. It's my view (and I'm not alone in this) that the vast majority of free software

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > Bending the words to suit my fancy, a GPL program intentionally posted > by its author somewhere on the web and freely copied by others is > thereafter "in transit." I don't see how any author can successfully > revoke a valid GPL license for existing copies that she

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

//copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 10:04 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Companies

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

I'm not an attorney but I'd think that a copyright itself cannot be copyright protected. And I would also think that no judge in the world is going to hand out damages for something like this where the substantive difference is absolutely zero. Plus, the common case for most newer open source

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > What non-GPL things are you talking about? Insofar as I can reconstruct my thinking of last night (post in haste, repent at leisure), I was thinking of the ordinary proprietary opt-out clause letting you incorporate Yoyodyne's library into your binary-only program. I

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

that, which is why I'm confused by John Cowan's comment. /Larry -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2015 11:25 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations Pamela

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

Pamela Chestek scripsit: > I think this statement is a fallacy, but I'm happy to hear other > opinions. A license attaches to the intangible copyright, not to the > tangible copy of the work you received. So as long as I can show that > the same copyrighted work was available under a license, and

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

Right, this is potentially a 'dual-license' scenario, where the copyright holders distribute the code under two (or more) distinct licenses, in separate distributions. If you receive the code under a non-open-source license, the presence of the same (or similar) code in another location under an

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Chris Ochs wrote: > I know they are open source because the authors have a website or github > repo with the open source license. They just aren't including that > license in the copy that they release through this company. If they are the

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

I know they are open source because the authors have a website or github repo with the open source license. They just aren't including that license in the copy that they release through this company. On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Kevin Fleming kevin+...@kpfleming.us wrote: On Fri, Aug 21,

Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Ochs ch...@ochsnet.com wrote: Some of these addons are themselves open source. The majority of the time the authors of these are not including the open source license. Which I think is legally ok, I'm guessing it actually just creates a dual license,

[License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this, if not I'd greatly appreciate a pointer to the right one. So I ran into a situation where a company isn't training their employees very well and is causing all sorts of confusion and in some cases outright license/copyright violations through what