On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:15:26 +0100
SamBC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
This sounds like much ado about nothing. As is well-known,
software is not
an easy fit within copyright doctrine. I am unsure whether
be
permissible under copyright law.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: Blake Cretney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 7:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GPLv2 'web-app loophole'
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:15:26 +0100
SamBC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
This sounds like much ado about nothing. As is well-known,
software is not
an easy fit within copyright doctrine. I am unsure whether there is a
relevant distinction between use and copy as far as software
Abraham Ingersoll scripsit:
We (Dajoba, LLC) publish web-based software under the GPL. We recently
came across a company who has taken our GPL'd code, modified it and
actively resells access to (use of) the renamed application.
Does your original work display a copyright notice to the user
David Johnson scripsit:
But such is not the case for a web application. The software will only be
copied to the legal owner's servers, and the only thing the user receives is
the output of the program, not the program itself.
There is the question of whether the HTML generated by the
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
Hmm... This is an interesting argument. You seem to be saying that you doubt
that some/all web-apps (scripts that execute on the server) load into an
end-user's RAM?
Clearly not. To take a technically equivalent example: when I send you
this email, I
On Thursday 09 August 2001 06:07 pm, John Cowan wrote:
There is the question of whether the HTML generated by the program is
a derivative work of the program, which depends on how the program is
implemented. If so, then OtherCo has surely copied *and distributed* it.
That's a tricky
On Wednesday 08 August 2001 2:15 am, David Johnson wrote:
My point is not whether a thing can be done, but whether it should
be done at all. I don't believe that Open Source licenses should
regulate in any way the actual execution of the software.
Are you saying that the Open Source
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, phil hunt wrote:
On Wednesday 08 August 2001 2:15 am, David Johnson wrote:
My point is not whether a thing can be done, but whether it should
be done at all. I don't believe that Open Source licenses should
regulate in any way the actual execution of the software.
On Monday 06 August 2001 08:42 pm, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
This sounds like much ado about nothing. As is well-known, software is
not an easy fit within copyright doctrine. I am unsure whether there is a
relevant distinction between use and copy as far as software is
concerned.
On Monday 06 August 2001 08:42 pm, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
This sounds like much ado about nothing. As is well-known, software is
not an easy fit within copyright doctrine. I am unsure whether
there is a
relevant distinction between use and copy as far as software is
concerned.
On Tuesday 07 August 2001 05:13 am, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Hmm... This is an interesting argument. You seem to be saying that you
doubt that some/all web-apps (scripts that execute on the server) load into
an end-user's RAM?
That's part of what I'm saying. And if the web-app isn't
on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:15:12PM -0700, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tuesday 07 August 2001 05:13 am, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Hmm... This is an interesting argument. You seem to be saying that you
doubt that some/all web-apps (scripts that execute on the server) load
On Tuesday 07 August 2001 06:27 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Note that this rule doesn't hole for Java, Javascript, Flash, and other
forms of content that are transmitted to, and executed on, the client's
host. In this case, code is distributed to the user's system. I'd
argue GPL
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 04:01:26PM -0700, Abraham Ingersoll wrote:
In leiu of the FSF's expert advice, does anyone here have a qualified
opinion about this 'web-app loophole' and possible remedies we should
entertain? Specifically -- what exactly consitutes a derivative work of
SourceForge
on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 04:01:26PM -0700, Abraham Ingersoll ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We (Dajoba, LLC) publish web-based software under the GPL. We recently
came across a company who has taken our GPL'd code, modified it and
actively resells access to (use of) the renamed application. They
On Monday 06 August 2001 04:01 pm, Abraham Ingersoll wrote:
We (Dajoba, LLC) publish web-based software under the GPL. We recently
...we simply want to feel out people's attitudes
regarding this 'web-app loophole'
Cool! I have some attitudes and opinions on this, and since you asked, I'll
As Larry said, you are asking an incredibly complicated legal question. Two
points: register your work with the Copyright Office immediately
(http://www.loc.gov/copyright/) and hire an attorney. Consulting FSF may be
helpful, but you seem to be presenting a classic case of someone needing
legal
18 matches
Mail list logo
