On Friday, 9 November 2001 11:50 AM David Johnson Wrote:
+AD4APg- On Thursday 08 November 2001 08:05 am, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
+AD4APg- +AD4- Can someone point out the OSD violation of a shareware license such
as
+AD4APg- +AD4- the following? I realize it violates the spirit of the OSD
Chris Gehlker wrote:
> I realize now that you were talking about owning the media.
Oh, there's no doubt that when I buy a book or an audio CD that I own
the medium. But I also own *a copy* of the bits encoded on the medium.
(This reserves to the copyright owner the five copyright rights still
On 11/9/01 4:06 AM, "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Gehlker scripsit:
>
>> As someone with some code on Open Source disks I'm afraid I can't agree.
>> They may own the media. They may own the very generous rights that I granted
>> them in the license. They certainly own any impro
Angelo Schneider wrote:
> What is the Berne Convention?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
> I only know the term in conjunction with international treties to
> respect each others copy right laws.
Just so. It also sets minimum standards; for example, the "moral right
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
>From: Angelo Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Open source shareware?
>Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 12:28:12 +
>
>Hi all!
>
>Angelo Schneider David Joh
On 11/9/01 2:28 AM, "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:37:21PM -0800, Ken Arromdee ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>>> Clause 1:
>>>
>>>"The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale"
>>>
Angelo Schneider wrote:
> You do not need a permission to create derivates, IMHO.
> As I understand copyright law creating of a derived work is free for
> everyone.
Not so under the Berne Convention.
--
Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the corridors
On 11/8/01 10:51 PM, "Chris D. Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I understand it, John was not saying that the person who buys a CD
> with a copy of Linux (or whatever) now owns a copyright or anything
> like that, but that they own the copy of the data itself.
>
> Similarly, I own many boo
s of Chris'
assertion; property ownership is not vague and amorphous. If you give me
something, I either own it or I don't.
kb
-Original Message-
From: Chris D. Sloan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:51 AM
To: Chris Gehlker
Cc: Open Source
Subj
Hi all!
Angelo Schneider David Johnson:
>
> > On Thursday 08 November 2001 08:05 am, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> >
> > As long as this permission notice and disclaimer are included, any
> > person obtaining a copy of this software may distribute this
> > software or derivatives.
>
> Where
Karsten,
I you lost me on this. Why does time determine the terms of a sale?
Ken Brown
-Original Message-
From: Karsten M. Self [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Open source shareware?
on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:37
Chris Gehlker scripsit:
> As someone with some code on Open Source disks I'm afraid I can't agree.
> They may own the media. They may own the very generous rights that I granted
> them in the license. They certainly own any improvements that they may have
> made to the original program. But the o
On Thursday 08 November 2001 11:16 pm, David Davies wrote:
> To OWN it they must first accept the terms of whatever licence (or
> contract) is applied to it.
Not at all. This is a myth promulgated by proprietary software companies. If
I agree to the license, then I have to follow the license. B
As I understand it, John was not saying that the person who buys a CD
with a copy of Linux (or whatever) now owns a copyright or anything
like that, but that they own the copy of the data itself.
Similarly, I own many books. Some of them I bought, some were given
to me, it doesn't really matter
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> Clause 1:
>
>"The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale"
>
> The terms for payment are interpreted by me to be "sale +time", which in
> the general case reduces to a required fee for sale or transfer.
Even in the general
On Thursday 08 November 2001 08:05 am, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Can someone point out the OSD violation of a shareware
> license such as the following? I realize it violates
> the spirit of the OSD, but I cannot find where it violates
> the "letter" of the OSD. The OSD is silent on "use"
On 11/8/01 3:50 PM, "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Under open-source licenses, you do own your copy. For those
> of you who seek novel experiences, go and buy a CD-ROM of a
> Linux or BSD distro; you will have, for perhaps the first
> time, bought software.
As someone with some code
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> But back to the shareware question. From that ruling there is
> a footnote that confuses me.
>
>5. Since MAI licensed its software, the Peak customers do
> not qualify as "owners" of the software and are not
> eligible for protection under 117.
The theory is that as a licensee, you are NOT an owner. Owners buy
products, they do not license, according to the theory. At issue is how
one might characterize the transaction involving the distribution of
software: is it a sale (which means the first sale doctrine might apply)
or is it a licens
Chris Gehlker wrote:
> Perhaps a little more realistically, he could say "I have the source and
> object code to a GPLed Quake beater game on this zip disk." He could even
> let game reviewers play the game on his machine to prove it. "As soon as
> 10,000 fanatic gamers chip in $1.00 through Pay
20 matches
Mail list logo
