David Johnson wrote:
I believe that copyright grants the user the right to make
modifications. HOWEVER, it does not also confer the right to distribute
those modifications.
The U.S. Copyright Act (section 106), which I will take as typical, says:
# § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, John Cowan wrote:
# § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
# Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title
# has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: [...]
# (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, John Cowan wrote:
"Own" is a sticky word. What we are talking about is the right to
make modified versions, which is clearly within the ambit of copyright.
You have no right to make modified versions of a program unless
the copyright owner grants you that right.
I
ubject: Re: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote:
Is there a problem with deleting the word reasonable? Are you simply
arguing that it doesn't need to be deleted, that it's too
small detail to
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
I can't understand this. You agree, completely, that we don't know (barring
someone doing legal research) what 'reasonable fee' means. And then you
argue that as long as the definition of an ephemeral word is not contested,
there's no problem,
-Original Message-
From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
SNIP
I can't understand this. You agree, completely, that we don't
know (barring
someone doing legal research) what 'reasonable fee' means. And then you
argue that as long as the definition of an ephemeral
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I think someone suggested dropping the word "reasonable." I think
that is a
good idea. RMS seems to think so too.
True, but RMS is not a god, and we are debating wether the license is Open
Source, not Free
David Johnson wrote:
As a practical matter, though, this is just as meaningless as arguing
over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin :-)
But does computation require a material substrate? :-)
You're only
supposed to submit the code upon request. First of all, Lucent has to
know
SamBC wrote:
Sounds like it prohibts nothing, just demands that modifications be
submitted to the originator, as in many current licenses.
Which is the notional equivalent of demanding that the marginal notes you
make in a book you own constitute a modified work, and that you must send
a
I Agree.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: SamBC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 9:21 AM
To: License Discussion (opensource)
Subject: RE: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost
of any media.
This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial
distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit.
I don't think this is really a
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
But there is, potentially, a difference -- someone can take you to court
over whether your fee was 'reasonable.' The GPL has no such limits:
The clause in question does not state that Lucent gets to decide what
is "reasonable". For all intents and
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote:
The clause in question does not state that Lucent gets to decide what
is "reasonable". For all intents and purposes, if a buyer and a sell
agree on a price, it is reasonable. As such, it is a meaningless
adjective.
You are trying to treat the
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
You are trying to treat the license as a cut and dried technical
statement, and it's not; its application includes jurisdiction,
precedence, judge, and jury. Any one of those can make a decision about
what 'reasonable' means.
All too often it
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 23 July 2000 20:15
To: David Johnson
Cc: Matthew C. Weigel; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments
[sorry I'm using a different account, it's a little more convenient]
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 200
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote:
Is there a problem with deleting the word reasonable? Are you simply
arguing that it doesn't need to be deleted, that it's too small detail to
matter? Because we don't know what reasonable might mean in a court
room, and it might make a
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, John Cowan wrote:
This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a
basic right
I agree with RMS here. Not allowing the private use of private changes
is way unreasonable.
As a practical matter, though, this is just as meaningless as arguing
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote:
Is there a problem with deleting the word reasonable? Are you simply
arguing that it doesn't need to be deleted, that it's too small detail to
matter? Because we don't know what reasonable might mean
PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 1:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments
RMS wrote an article on the Plan 9 license, available at
http://www.gnu.org
RMS wrote an article on the Plan 9 license, available at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html .
I have made excerpts from it here as a matter of fair use.
First, here are the provisions that make the software non-free.
You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request,
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, John Cowan wrote:
This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a
basic right
I agree with RMS here. Not allowing the private use of private changes
is way unreasonable.
As a practical matter, though, this is just as meaningless as arguing
over
21 matches
Mail list logo
