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
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 [mailto:nyeat...@umbc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:35 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright & RHEL contract
>From http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf
> At the same time, the combine
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
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
Quoting Nick Yeates (nyeat...@umbc.edu):
> I too am curious what this "compilation license"ing is...
Copyright law recognises the possiblity of an abstract property called a
'compilation copyright', that being the ownership interest gained by
someone who _creatively_ collects and assembles other
>From http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf
> At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat®
> Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red
> Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work.
Bradley Kuhn wrote at 15:
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
> Patches are typical derivative works themselves of the original work.
That's a very debatable point, though I doubt there is much point in
debating it here yet again. My view is that a patch by itself makes
only fair use of the original, though it's true that a *patch
John Cowan wrote at 19:42 (EDT) on Thursday:
> So it's perfectly parallel, reading "packages" for "patches".
Not quite, the details are different since it's different parts of the
copyright controls. Patches are typical derivative works themselves of
the original work. Thus, both the "arrangemen
Rick Moen wrote at 16:55 (EDT) on Friday:
> You seem to be trying to imply without saying so that the
> source-access obligations of copyleft licences somehow give you
> additional rights in other areas _other_ than source acccess. What
> I'm saying is, no, that's just not the case.
GPL (and othe
Al Foxone wrote at 04:18 (EDT) on Saturday:
> en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:License This agreement governs your download,
> installation, or use of openSUSE 12.3 and its ...The openSUSE Project
> grants to you a license to this collective work pursuant to
> the ...openSUSE 12.3 is a modular Linux operat
On Friday, September 6, 2013, John Cowan wrote:
> I agree that I don't know of anyone else who has done this.
from google:
www.novell.com/.../eula/.../sles_11_en.p...SUSE® Linux Enterprise Server
11 ... The Software is a collective work of Novell; althoughNovell does not
own the ...
en.opensu
Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com):
> My understanding is that the GPL applies to object code aside from
> source-access obligations.
[Reminder: There _are_ other copyleft licences. In RHEL, even.]
Show me an object-code RPM in RHEL for which Red Hat, Inc. do not
provide the open source
GPL applies to the original component, and always
will.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:19 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright & RHEL contract
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com):
>
>> Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use
>> binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in
>> that original form due to trademarks (without additional
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
> When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted
> software, I'm usually focused on things like "the maintainer chose which
> patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release"
So it's perfectly parallel, reading "packages" for "patche
Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com):
> Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use
> binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in
> that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark
> license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-us
Al Foxone wrote at 07:57 (EDT):
> Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use
> binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in
> that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark
> license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit rest
John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday:
> I don't see where the oddity comes in. If we grant that the
> compilation which is RHEL required a creative spark in the selection
> (for the arrangement is mechanical), then it is a fit object of
> copyright.
It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entit
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Al Foxone asked me on Friday at 13:58 (EDT) about:
>> http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf
> ...
>> At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat®
>> Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which h
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
> It's certainly possible to license all sorts of copyrights under GPL,
> since it's a copyright license. Red Hat has chosen, IMO rather oddly,
> to claim strongly a compilation copyright on putting together RHEL and
> Red Hat licenses that copyright under terms of GPL.
Al Foxone asked me on Friday at 13:58 (EDT) about:
> http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf
...
> At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat®
> Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red
> Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright
22 matches
Mail list logo