On Thursday 12. March 2015 02.12, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> But that's the acceptance by breaking the wrapper, not just by virtue of
> being printed.
I remember in Norway where I live, it was common in the 1990s to have wrapped
software CDs with a seal that said something to the effect of «by bre
2015 8:53 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org;
Subject:Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
Pamela Chestek scripsit:
> Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been
> construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term
&g
Pamela Chestek scripsit:
> Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been
> construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term
> printed on it?
Isn't boxed software a tangible article? If the box doesn't count, the
CD/DVD surely does.
--
John Cowan
On 3/11/2015 5:48 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> "DANGER: Poison inside!"
I would go with "assumption of risk" on that one. :-)
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pam...@chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
Board Certified by the NC State Bar's
Board of
Smith, McCoy scripsit:
> The conditional sale cases under the patent law (of which there
> are but a few, the Mallinckrodt case being the most notable:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallinckrodt,_Inc._v._Medipart,_Inc. )
> might be an example, although I don't recall if there was
> any sort of tr
e-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 3/11/2015 1:58 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
> I think the Supremes would consider
t: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 3/11/2015 1:58 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
> I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they
> had the opportunity to overrule it, because it depends on the
> exclusive right to vend that is conf
On 3/11/2015 1:58 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
> I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they
> had the opportunity to overrule it, because it depends on the
> exclusive right to vend that is conferred in the 1831 Act and in the 1909
> Act, but not present in the 1976 Act.
Qu
nately are directly from the licensor to the
licensee. Sublicensing not involved.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: co...@ccil.org [mailto:co...@ccil.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:58 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and
Pamela Chestek quotavit:
> In our view the copyright statutes, while protecting the owner of the
> copyright in his right to multiply and sell his production, do not
> create the right to impose, by notice, such as is disclosed in this
> case, a limitation at which the book shall be sold at retail
On 3/10/2015 12:55 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
> Fortunately, books are also sold --
> at least so far, though nothing stops book publishers from putting
> the same sort of notice into each copy of a book and gutting the
> used-book market.
A Supreme Court case does:
The precise question, therefore
Hello,
One may wonder what is the big deal with this single phrase in LGPL. It
basically states something fairly similar with EU software directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024
Please see art. 6, "Decompilation":
> The authorisation of the rightholder sha
On 11/03/2015 01:07, John Cowan wrote:
> No, of course not. But when I buy the book, the first-sale right is
> exhausted; when I buy proprietary software, it is not, and I have no
> right to resell. The difference is that the book is purchased
> whereas the proprietary software is only licensed.
Johnny A. Solbu scripsit:
> Then you are mistaken. The copy was licenced, not sold. If you did
> buy it, then it would become your property, and no longer Redhat's
> property.
That copy was my property and not Red Hat's. They were of course free
to make other copies, as was I. Similarly, when I
David Woolley scripsit:
> You can buy a book (i.e. hardware consisting of paper and ink), but
> you can't buy the novel that it contains (the author will not assign
> copyright to you).
No, of course not. But when I buy the book, the first-sale right is
exhausted; when I buy proprietary software
On Tuesday 10. March 2015 17.55, co...@ccil.org wrote:
> I think I've bought software exactly once, a boxed set of
> Red Hat Linux back in 1999. All the rest has been licensed under
> either a proprietary or an open-source license.
Then you are mistaken. The copy was licenced, not sold. If you di
On 10/03/15 23:53, John Cowan wrote:
You didn't buy the software. You bought a piece of hardware with a
>single copy.
By that definition, I don't buy books either, but that turns out not to
be the case.
You can buy a book (i.e. hardware consisting of paper and ink), but you
can't buy the no
David Woolley scripsit:
> You didn't buy the software. You bought a piece of hardware with a
> single copy.
By that definition, I don't buy books either, but that turns out not to
be the case.
> Red Hat don't even have the right to sell most of Linux as people like
> the FSF own it.
The FSF ac
On 10/03/15 16:55, co...@ccil.org wrote:
I've bought software exactly once, a boxed set of
Red Hat Linux back in 1999.
You didn't buy the software. You bought a piece of hardware with a
single copy. Red Hat don't even have the right to sell most of Linux as
people like the FSF own it.
A l
Thufir Hawat scripsit:
> Does the same logic apply to widgets? If so, that would, potentially,
> kill after-market car parts, which, if I'm not mistaken, are reverse
> engineered from the original.
Cars and their parts are sold, not licensed. If purchasers of
proprietary software would insist o
On 2015-03-08 01:33 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Frankly, I have zero sympathy for Baystate's behavior. Bowers offered to
license his technology on commercial terms, and they told him they thought
they could do it themselves. They then licensed a copy of his work,
accepting in the process the license'
thufir scripsit:
> I don't think it's necessary to write a PDF about it, but, still,
> interesting. IMHO this is bad policy, a bad law, but there you are.
> Did this change at one point? I thought that reverse engineering
> was found to be legal, at least in the US? And this Bowers v
> Baystate
On 2015-03-07 08:03 AM, John Cowan wrote:
thufir scripsit:
Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows. I
think the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're
coming from, or at least what your concern is. Again, what is the
mechanism by which *properietary
thufir scripsit:
> Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows. I
> think the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're
> coming from, or at least what your concern is. Again, what is the
> mechanism by which *properietary* software *prevents* reverse
> engine
On 2015-03-04 07:16 AM, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
Now, I am indeed sure that all important open source licenses
including the LGPL-v2 allow reverse engineering only in case of
distributing statically linked programs. Moreover: I am definitely
sure, that none of these open source licenses requires
On 2015-03-06 07:14 PM, thufir wrote:
i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that
if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of
them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary
lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the copy
On 2015-03-06 05:30 PM, lkcl . wrote:
>
>So, that's the point. You might write what you like about the GPL and
>reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the door
>on this.
no it has not. from previous experience, you have a habit of being
unable to discern between c
On 2015-03-06 05:30 PM, lkcl . wrote:
i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that
if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of
them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary
lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the cop
On 2015-03-06 03:30 PM, thufir wrote:
"For example, my capable colleague Helene Tamer constantly insisted, that
Deutsche Telekom AG could not give up her restrictions to use LGPL
libraries until
I had offered a reliable proof that the LGPL does not require reverse
engineering."
Admittedly, I
I don't get it, the pdf is at odds with Dr. Stallman and the FSF, if not
in specifics, at least in results and effects. The FSF, to the extent I
was able to get an official position from it, is all in favor of taking
GPL'ed API's, copying the declaring code, re-writing the implementation,
and
thufir, hooray! there is something which i can agree with you on. read on...
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:43 PM, thufir wrote:
> On 2015-03-06 03:30 PM, thufir wrote:
>>
>> "For example, my capable colleague Helene Tamer constantly insisted, that
>> Deutsche Telekom AG could not give up her restri
[top-posting by way of preamble, apologies to others receiving this:
thufir is someone whom i have interacted with in the past without
achieving successful rational communication, on the gpl-violations
mailing list]
ah, thufir, after a long time, you initiate a discussion (directly to
me) for whic
, 5. März 2015 03:51
>> An: License Discuss
>> Cc: ftf-le...@fsfeurope.org; karen.copenha...@gmail.com;
>> arm...@tjaldur.nl; Wiedemann, Claus-Peter; Schwegler, Robert
>> Betreff: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
>>
> [...]
>>
>
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
>
[...]
>
> The intended interpretation of the drafters is made clear at
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic. They
> distinguish by how the software is distributed. If you distribute code
Sorry, but this is a ridiculously heavyweight way of thinking about
things. The problem with thinking in a heavyweight fashion is that it
is easy to lose track of what is going on, and hard for anyone else to
wade through it and point out the error. However I'll try.
On page 6 you are arguing fo
On 04/03/15 15:16, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
In the past I was involved in some full discussions concerning the issue
‘reverse engineering and open source licenses’. Although personally
esteeming and inspiring, such discussions sometimes became a bit
explosive: If – at least – the LGPL-v2 indeed r
36 matches
Mail list logo