On Mon 2007-09-03 04:58:58, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
> >Either license can grant you the right to distribute
> >it, but how you get the
> >rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient.
> >They receive a lawful
> >copy and any rights the original author grants them
>
On Mon 2007-09-03 04:58:58, Jeff Garzik wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
Either license can grant you the right to distribute
it, but how you get the
rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient.
They receive a lawful
copy and any rights the original author grants them
under a
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work
>> has an implicit "all rights reserved". A licence is just exception.
>
> And? The fact remains that "All Rights Reserved" means "I am reserving all
> rights I do not specifically
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work
has an implicit all rights reserved. A licence is just exception.
And? The fact remains that All Rights Reserved means I am reserving all
rights I do not specifically grant or
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote:
> Chris Friesen writes:
> > Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >>>Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work
Chris Friesen writes:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>>
>>>Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work under, can still revoke
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
specific person or
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
> > may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
> > specific person or group of people.
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 04:50:34 James Bruce wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> The fact
> >>> remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
> >>>
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may
> have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific
> person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply
> to the
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
Not after the
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
Not after the
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may
have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific
person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply
to the situation that
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 04:50:34 James Bruce wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has the
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
specific person or group of people. (There are
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
specific person or group
Chris Friesen writes:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Chris Friesen wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work under, can still
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote:
Chris Friesen writes:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have
On Monday 03 September 2007 15:33:01 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of
> > "The license applies to the copyright holder"
>
> Of course not.
I'll take this at face value - I might have
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of "The
> license applies to the copyright holder"
Of course not.
> The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a
> license grant at any time.
Based on?
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The fact
> > remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
> > copyright
> > license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
>
> Not after the
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The fact
> remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
> copyright
> license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be
restrictions),
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:48:00 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork
> > - his code
> > is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license
> > and was only
> > covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work
> > Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL
> > license claim to allow this.
> Standard dual license texts do.
>
> Jeff
No, they don't. They simply state that *you* may obtain the right to
modify/distribute the work from either license at your option. They
> Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork
> - his code
> is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license
> and was only
> covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that
> carried said dual-license. (I'm not sure how well such a
David Schwartz wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if
delegated
to them by the original author.
Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL
license claim to allow this.
Standard dual license texts do.
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if
> delegated
> to them by the original author.
Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL
license claim to allow this.
> Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time.
On Sep 3 2007 04:58, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How do you think
> most music gets into consumer hands?
uh, p2p? :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
David Schwartz wrote:
Either license can grant you the right to distribute it, but how you get the
rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient. They receive a lawful
copy and any rights the original author grants them under a license from
that original author. You have no power to
David Schwartz wrote:
Either license can grant you the right to distribute it, but how you get the
rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient. They receive a lawful
copy and any rights the original author grants them under a license from
that original author. You have no power to
On Sep 3 2007 04:58, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How do you think
most music gets into consumer hands?
uh, p2p? :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if
delegated
to them by the original author.
Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL
license claim to allow this.
Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How
David Schwartz wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if
delegated
to them by the original author.
Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL
license claim to allow this.
Standard dual license texts do.
Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork
- his code
is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license
and was only
covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that
carried said dual-license. (I'm not sure how well such a revocation
Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL
license claim to allow this.
Standard dual license texts do.
Jeff
No, they don't. They simply state that *you* may obtain the right to
modify/distribute the work from either license at your option. They do not
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:48:00 David Schwartz wrote:
Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork
- his code
is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license
and was only
covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be
restrictions), unless of
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
Not after the licence has been
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of The
license applies to the copyright holder
Of course not.
The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a
license grant at any time.
Based on?
On Monday 03 September 2007 15:33:01 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of
The license applies to the copyright holder
Of course not.
I'll take this at face value - I might have mis-parsed
(by the way, text in caps surrounded by *'s is meant to indicate vocal stress,
not volume)
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:18 David Schwartz wrote:
> > So I appear to have a
> > right to convey the work under the GPL to a third party, who from me
> > receives no right to use it except under
Alan Cox wrote:
> The ath5k C file in question (not the headers) seems to give recipients
> permission to further convey the work under a choice of two licences.
Correct.
> It doesn't say they must redistribute under both.
Correct. They need the right to redistribute the work, and they may
This has been pretty interesting for me to watch as I distribute my
isp driver under a dual license (at least the portions of it which are
common with the *BSD and Solaris ports) that is almost identical to
Sam's verbiage.
I'll admit that I hadn't thought about whether redistribution included
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> >Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> >they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> >for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
Yes.
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
> licensing terms concurrently.
No. E.g.:
If I don't agree to the GPL (or if I had violated it and therefore have lost
it's privileges), I MUST NOT redistribute it under the GPL
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
Yes. This deserves to be reinforced:
There is
IANAL, but:
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a
> single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just
> > Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> > they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> > for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>>> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
>>> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
>>
>> Not strictly true. They can either
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was permission to do so.
There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really?
Your understanding isn't quite
> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for
Igor Sobrado wrote:
When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or
changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code
and documentation *without* an authorization from all the
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:20:27 +0200 (CEST)
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
> > the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
> > was permission to do
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing
terms (BSD).
Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and
code Reyk contributed to leaving
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>> You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
>> the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
>> was permission to do so.
>
> There was
On Sep 1 2007 18:36, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
>When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
>them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
>is OK.
For companies it's ok, but for linux people it is not?
(1) You do not know how much of the modifications
> - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the
> license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law.
> Really.
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was
On Sep 1 2007 18:36, Theo de Raadt wrote:
When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
is OK.
For companies it's ok, but for linux people it is not?
(1) You do not know how much of the modifications
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was permission to do so.
There was permission to do
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing
terms (BSD).
Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and
code Reyk contributed to leaving
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:20:27 +0200 (CEST)
Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was permission to do so.
Igor Sobrado wrote:
When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or
changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code
and documentation *without* an authorization from all the
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was permission to do so.
There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really?
Your understanding isn't quite
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for example does this for version selection.
So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
developer to remove the GPL
IANAL, but:
Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a
single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just be
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
Yes. This deserves to be reinforced:
There is
Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently.
No. E.g.:
If I don't agree to the GPL (or if I had violated it and therefore have lost
it's privileges), I MUST NOT redistribute it under the GPL because I
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
Yes.
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for example does this for version selection.
So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the
This has been pretty interesting for me to watch as I distribute my
isp driver under a dual license (at least the portions of it which are
common with the *BSD and Solaris ports) that is almost identical to
Sam's verbiage.
I'll admit that I hadn't thought about whether redistribution included
Alan Cox wrote:
The ath5k C file in question (not the headers) seems to give recipients
permission to further convey the work under a choice of two licences.
Correct.
It doesn't say they must redistribute under both.
Correct. They need the right to redistribute the work, and they may
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the
lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I
ask?
Is it not self-evident? Legal review is the sane course of action, when
legal issues are the bone of contention.
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
> them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
> is OK.
>
> When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
> against changes
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:26PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
> >As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
> >the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
> >reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
> >it, such that there
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:36:36PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
> them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
> is OK.
>
> When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
> against
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk
When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
is OK.
When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard.
Why does our brother
On 01/09/07, Luis R. Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
> Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
> attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
> done privately.
Err...
I don't
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at
>As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
>the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
>reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
>it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
>to OpenBSD,
I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
done privately.
Luis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 03:03:36PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> This will
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:51:49PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
What myth? The myth
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > >
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code
> > > >
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> If OpenBSD wants a world where code must be returned
OpenBSD does not want this.
OpenBSD wants a world where people do things because they are the
right thing to do.
OpenBSD lets you decide; it doesn't dictate.
someone poo-poos your
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
> >
> > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual
> It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
> because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors,
Oh dear - Theo, go talk to a lawyer, or do a course on licencing.
The owner generally starts with the rights to control who performs acts
covered by
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
>
> What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
to
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
