On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In the case of renting a machine you can try to legislate new laws all
>> > you want. It doesn't make a differe
On 16/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How the hell does that improve the situation for users?
Maybe it doesn't. How does it make it worse?
Now not even the vendor can upgrade the software in the hardware and
fix problems
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
> > *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
> > *REPLACEMENT* of the program.
> Technicality. In order for the software to rema
Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So you have to give recipients the license text from a particular
> version of the GPL. To make that the only version unde which the work
> is licensed, you have to add something like "Licensed under the
> GPLv2". Otherwise sec. 9 says that you offer
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They are not keeping a priviledge over the *SOFTWARE* at all. They
> are keeping a priviledge over the *HARDWARE*.
No, they're using the hardware (along with other pieces of software)
to deny users (but not themselves) the freedoms tha
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
> *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
> *REPLACEMENT* of the program.
Technicality. In order for the software to remain free (
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 14:43 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >
> > You mean renting the computer with the software in it is not
> > distribution of the software?
>
> It is. But you don't have the same rights to a rented machine as you do to
> one
> you have purchased. In fact, in renting a machi
On Jun 16, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How the hell does that improve the situation for users?
Maybe it doesn't. How does it make it worse?
Maybe just providing an incentive for the vendor to respect users'
freedoms will do the trick, and *some* vendors will do, while those
who c
On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
On Saturday 16 June 2007 13:14:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > because it could easily be argued that they
On Saturday 16 June 2007 12:57:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
> >>> their system
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:57:59PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
>
On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
>> > Linux kernel
>>
>> How so?
On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
>>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
>>
>> I'm not the F
> Red Hat created the "Fedora" trademark to have a separate and more liberally
> licensed trademark that people like cheapbytes.com could use without
> reflecting on Red Hat Enterprise. Unfortunately, trying to find reference
> for this is non-obvious, because, the Fedora Trademarks page is:
>
Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, by making the COPYING contain the v2 text, is the author
> > specifying a particular version? If yes, then the sec. 9 provision
> > would be meaningless, since there would be no way to not specify a
> > version number.
>
> Of course the "publis
> I read it: the flash contains everything from the bootloader to the
> kernel and file system. The bootloader contains the public key and
> checks if the kernel/fs
> are ok. That includes calculating hashes and checking signatures.
> No encryption/decryption there at all.
>
> Right?
>
> Then ho
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>> I always did imply a "within reason". To me that means "if it is
>> simple for them to do it and can be simply extended to me as well
>> then they have to extend it". Handing out a SHA1 key definitely is
>> simple and thus IMO something I can expect them to do.
> But the
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> and that's where the GPLv3 errs: it arbitrarily attempts to "define"
> some work that can _easily_ be completely separate from the GPL-ed
> work to be under the scope of "source code".
Well thanksfuly the last draft doesn't and puts keys and other such
stuff under "installat
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
>
> I'm not the FSF, and I don't speak for it, but it seems to me that
> this would
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
> > Linux kernel
>
> How so?
(I'm going to refer to Linux as GPLix from here on since this argum
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How hard would it be to reprogramm the flash?
The flash contains hashes signed by the companies private key.
The kernel contains the public key. It can decrypt the hashes but the
private key isn't available to encrypt them. So
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 11:24:08AM -0300, Tomas Neme wrote:
>> 1) What is "tat"?
>>
>> 2) How can I get some?
>>
>> 3) Where do I go to trade it in?
>
> 4) is it legal to consume it in my country?
>
> 5) should I have a designed driver when I do?
6) Is that allowed to be a binary-only driver or
Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, by making the COPYING contain the v2 text, is the author
> specifying a particular version? If yes, then the sec. 9 provision
> would be meaningless, since there would be no way to not specify a
> version number.
Of course the "published under ter
On Jun 16, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Then, any redistributor adds a copy of any version of the GPL (because
>> >> you didn't specify a version number). At this point, is the program
>> >> licensed by *you* only under this specific license?
>>
>> > If they did not mak
On Jun 16, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is
>> > the same - neither forcing the man
On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
> Linux kernel
How so?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler E
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
>> >> users the conten
David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How hard would it be to reprogramm the flash?
>
> The flash contains hashes signed by the companies private key.
>
> The kernel contains the public key. It can decrypt the hashes but the
> private key isn't available to encrypt them. So although you can
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Furthermore when you get source code of free software then there is
> > no "meeting of minds" needed for you to accept the GPL's conditions,
> > and only the letter of the license (and, in case of any ambiguities,
> > the intent of the author of
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This 5 minute design undoubtedly has flaws but it shows a direction:
A basically standard 'De11' PC with some flash.
A Tivoised boot system so only signed kernels boot.
A modified kernel that only runs (FOSS) executables whose si
On 6/15/07, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 19:52 -0500, Scott Preece wrote:
>
> Yes, but in highlighting the possibility of evil intentions you
> distort the fact that usually there are no such evil intentions...
>
I don't think you can use "usually" and "fact" togeth
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is
> the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make the device
> non-updatable nor forcing the manufactu
> On Friday 15 June 2007 18:59:14 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So it's true: the GPL just gives you rights, and without it you have no
> > rights (other than fair use ones etc), and blah blah. But the distinction
> > between "license" vs "contract" really isn't a very important one in any
> > case.
>
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > * Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
>>
On Friday 15 June 2007 21:29:22 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Technically what they're holding back is _trademark_ rights, which are a
> > different area of IP law and not addressed by the GPL. (I know you know
> > this, but just for the record...)
>
> No, tec
On Friday 15 June 2007 23:51, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 17:08, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> >> If the Program does not specify a version number of this License,
> >> >> you may choose any version ever published
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 00:44 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> >> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> >> t
On Friday 15 June 2007 22:16:30 Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
> > > Linux kernel and then you run bang i
On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> >> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> >> that legi
On Jun 16, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 17:08, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> If the Program does not specify a version number of this License,
>> >> you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
>> >> Foundation.
> Distributing a copy o
On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
>> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
>> that legitimate enough of a reason to restrict the hardware?
> Can I s
>> "version 2 or higher"
> That phrase exists outside the license
That's true. But sec. 9 of the GPLv2 says:
If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you
may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
So, by making the COPYING contain the v2
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:08, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 6/15/07, Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Friday 15 June 2007 14:15:58 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > The point is: can you, or can't you (legally) relicense the whole kernel
> > tree under the GPLv3 (or GPLv2+GPLv3)?
>
> No. My special rights do not actually give me those kinds of powers,
> exactly b
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> that legitimate enough of a reason to restrict the hardware?
Can I submit that they could just rent the use of their machines? I
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
> > Linux kernel and then you run bang into some interactions that make you
> > think the bug migh
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 19:52 -0500, Scott Preece wrote:
>
> Yes, but in highlighting the possibility of evil intentions you
> distort the fact that usually there are no such evil intentions...
>
I don't think you can use "usually" and "fact" together like that. Why
is it so bad to account for th
By the way, the unfortunate answer to the question of what the default
position is when contributions to a collective work are received without
explicit license, at least in the United States, is:
"In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights
under it, the owner of copy
On Friday 15 June 2007 18:59:14 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So it's true: the GPL just gives you rights, and without it you have no
> rights (other than fair use ones etc), and blah blah. But the distinction
> between "license" vs "contract" really isn't a very important one in any
> case.
Er, copyrig
On Jun 15, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 15:28:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:25:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> Is the signature not derived from the bits in the GPLed co
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > * Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
>> chosen by the licensor, in case of ambiguity in the ter
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The FSF's approval of this distinction (ROM versus replaceable) places
>> > the FSF's particular principles over users interests, for no
>> > particular reason
>> Over *users*
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> Technically what they're holding back is _trademark_ rights, which are a
> different area of IP law and not addressed by the GPL. (I know you know
> this, but just for the record...)
No, technically Red Hat really *does* have copyrights of their ow
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:28:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:25:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Is the signature not derived from the bits in the GPLed component, as
> >> much as it is derived from the key?
> >
> > A
On Friday 15 June 2007 20:22:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
> >>
On Friday 15 June 2007 13:03:53 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But does Red Hat actually give you *all* the rights they
> hold on the DVD? No, they definitely do not. They hold a
> compilation copyright on RHEL, and they very much do *not*
> give you the r
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do these stop a user's exercise of the four freedoms of a piece of
software licensed under the GPL?
---
I know you don't see it that way, but I still find it bizarre that
"the
On Friday 15 June 2007 19:39:57 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > > > What matters is *my* intent in *choosing* the GPLv2, not *his*
> > > > intent in writing it.
> > >
> > > I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. [...]
> >
> > ianal, but fortunately that's not what the law is. Th
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
chosen by the licensor, in case of ambiguity in the terms, many courts
will interpret it in a way that privileges the licensee,
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's not true. They can just as well throw the key away and refrain
>> from modifying the installed software behind the users' back.
> This characterization misses something i
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
>> > GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardwa
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:13:54PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Obviously Linus feels that the spirit of the GPLv2 is exactly what
he wanted
spirit != letter. He liked the letter. He couldn't even
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:13:54PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Obviously Linus feels that the spirit of the GPLv2 is exactly what
> > he wanted
>
> spirit != letter. He liked the letter. He couldn't even tell spirit
> from letter
> > > What matters is *my* intent in *choosing* the GPLv2, not *his*
> > > intent in writing it.
> >
> > I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. [...]
>
> ianal, but fortunately that's not what the law is. The license says what
> it says, and that is what controls. The
> * Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > My experience with german courts has shown me that the judges I had
>> > to deal with always and foremost did apply a reality check and did
>> > not try to bisect the consequences like an algorithm evaluated by a
>> > machine, i.e. the tried t
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
>> > GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain typ
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 17:24:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> PS: Note that Stallmans motivation was *SOURCE* *CODE* *ACCESS* -
>> >> nothing else.
>> Not, it was to be able
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've looked through the GPLv3 and "tivoization" and DRM are the only things
> that are functionally different. In reading the GPLv3 *again* today I got the
> impression that there are more restrictions than grants of rights.
http://f
On Jun 15, 2007, Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously Linus feels that the spirit of the GPLv2 is exactly what
> he wanted
spirit != letter. He liked the letter. He couldn't even tell spirit
from letter 2 or 3 days ago.
The spirit is the motivations behind the author of the licen
> And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the license, has
> absolutely *ZERO* bearing. Just as it is not the *intent* of RMS, the FSF or
Wrong (again)
The pre-amble is incredibly important as is the intent of the license
creator and even more so of the author.
When trying to
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn't. Still, encoded in t
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> You're again confusing legal terms with the intent. The legal
>> >> terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along
>> >> with the free software definition it alludes
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> btw., still ianal, but the GPLv2 is not a "contract" but a "pure
> copyright license".
I've been told by several independent sources that it really doesn't
matter.
The "pure license" argument was born largely for silly reasons: people
claimed (a _l
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Michael Gerdau wrote:
>
> I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view.
I'm sorry, but that's simply bullshit.
The GPLv2 does not state that you have to become a slave of rms and follow
him in all things, and agree with him. Really. You must have read
* Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My experience with german courts has shown me that the judges I had
> > to deal with always and foremost did apply a reality check and did
> > not try to bisect the consequences like an algorithm evaluated by a
> > machine, i.e. the tried to dec
On Friday 15 June 2007 18:06:11 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > > I find it obvious that the GPL was meant to prevent such to be
> > > possible. This is what I mean by the "the spirit of the GPL".
> >
> > Umm. It may well have been meant by *rms*. But your argument fatally
> > falls down on the fact that
* Michael Gerdau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What matters is *my* intent in *choosing* the GPLv2, not *his*
> > intent in writing it.
>
> I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. [...]
ianal, but fortunately that's not what the law is. The license says what
it says,
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:45:16 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 15:37:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Friday 15 June 2007 02:59:31 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > I find it obvious that the GPL was meant to prevent such to be possible.
> > This is what I mean by the "the spirit of the GPL".
>
> Umm. It may well have been meant by *rms*. But your argument fatally falls
> down on the fact that rms has had *nothing* to do with the Linux kernel.
While I r
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the
> > license, has absolutely *ZERO* bearing.
>
> That's not true. Again, ianal, etc etc, but:
>
> "Intent" *does* matter, and if you wrote down the intent at the time
> you entered som
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
> GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware that the
> FSF's president does not like.
That's not tru
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:24:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> PS: Note that Stallmans motivation was *SOURCE* *CODE* *ACCESS* -
> >> nothing
> >
> > else.
>
> Not, it was to be able to modify the behavior of the printer, and he
> needed th
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You're again confusing legal terms with the intent. The legal
> >> terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along
> >> with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even better
> >> job at that.
>
> > And the prea
Once upon a time, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>But at least my participation in this thread was to show that GPLv3
>does not indeed change the spirit, unlike others who missed or
>misunderstood the spirit claimed.
What you continue to miss is that "the spirit of the GPL" is some
mys
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>
> And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the license, has
> absolutely *ZERO* bearing.
That's not true. Again, ianal, etc etc, but:
"Intent" *does* matter, and if you wrote down the intent at the time you
entered some legal agr
On Friday 15 June 2007 16:04:15 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:39:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > You're making an artificial distinction based on
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
> > GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware that the
> > FSF's president does not like.
>
> That's not
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 15:37:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Friday 15 June 2007 02:59:31 Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> >> it doesn't say anything about being able to run a compil
On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:04:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > No specific case law, but I'd expect serious [eventual] trouble for
>> > somebody trying to slap some different license in such case.
>>
>> Consider this (to make the freein
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn't. Still, encoded in the spirit (that
> >> refers to free software, bringing in the free
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:04:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > No specific case law, but I'd expect serious [eventual] trouble for
> > somebody trying to slap some different license in such case.
>
> Consider this (to make the freeing-the-lion story short):
>
> Jar file with .class files,
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > see the slippery slope in action? Lets just use this limited
> > concession on your part and show that _even this_ leads to absurd
> > results:
>
> > - a "roadblock" such as a too small button?
>
> Why is it too small?
>
> > - a "roadblock" su
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And it doesn't *MATTER* what they intended, or what they feel the "spirit" of
> the license is. The second they made it public and gave people the option of
> applying the GPL to their projects their intent lost all meaning - because
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:15 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:23 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Actually, I don't see where it explicitly states that it only covers
> > > derived work.
> >
> > See "Section 0":
> >
> > The "
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> PS: Note that Stallmans motivation was *SOURCE* *CODE* *ACCESS* - nothing
> else.
Not, it was to be able to modify the behavior of the printer, and he
needed the source code in order to do that. Even for a tivoized
printer, this wo
On Jun 15, 2007, Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu 14 Jun 2007 13:46, Alexandre Oliva pondered:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > As a person pretty familiar with the hardware in these types of
>> > devices - this just isn't practical.
>>
>> Well, then, o
On Jun 15, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:21:59PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Consider egg yolk and egg shells.
>>
>> I produce egg yolk. I give it to you under terms that say "if you
>> pass this on, you must do so in such a way that doesn't
On 06/15/2007 02:30 PM, Michael Poole wrote:
Florin Malita writes:
On 06/15/2007 12:18 PM, Michael Poole wrote:
Yes. If I cut a book in half and store the halves separately, does
the second half become an independent work?
Except in this case you're not touching the book at
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:37:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 02:59:31 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >> it doesn't say anything about being able to run a compiled version
> >> of that source on any specific hardware.
> >
> > A
401 - 500 of 1069 matches
Mail list logo
