CTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...
Now this thread has confused me. What is XOR an acronym for?
Tom, does the phrase "YOUR ANAL" translates to "you are not a lawyer",
or "you are extremely retentive?"
--scott
__
On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 10:08 AM, Gary Dunn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:21:54 -0900
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the
notion of shrink-wrap licenses.
IANAL, but I believe both are based on copyright law.
YOUR ANAL!? I see
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:21:54 -0900
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the
> > >notion of shrink-wrap licenses.
> >
> > IANAL, but I believe both are based on copyright law.
>
> YOUR ANAL!? I see. This must skew your thought somewhat on s
YOUR ANAL!? I see. This must skew your thought somewhat on such matters.
Tom
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Hawaii Linux Institute wrote:
>We need
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Hawaii Linux Institute wrote:
>We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the
>notion of shrink-wrap licenses.
IANAL, but I believe both are based on copyright law.
>First, since there are no face-to-face negotiations, do you really need
>to abide by the t
Hawaii Linux Institute wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
SCO
We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the
notion of shrink-wrap licenses. There are two important issues. First,
since there are no face-to-face negotiations, do you really need to
abide by the terms of GPL
Warren Togami wrote:
SCO
We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the
notion of shrink-wrap licenses. There are two important issues. First,
since there are no face-to-face negotiations, do you really need to
abide by the terms of GPL and open your source code? If y
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, R.Scott Belford wrote:
>If intellectual property is not of paramount importance, then GPL
>software is viable. It all comes down to how one wishes to
>differentiate his product/service. If service/support/implementation
>are the strengths and revenue-generators of a company,
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 06:34 AM, Vince Hoang wrote:
Cautious vendors that are concerned with intellectual property do
not need avoid using open-source until a legal precedence is set
with the GPL. For lots of GPL software, there is usually a BSD
equivalent.
The folks at Lavanet hav
or LGPL
Moo
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: [luau] that crazy GPL stuff...
Cautious vendors that are concerned with intellectual property do
not need avoid using open-source until a legal precedence is
Cautious vendors that are concerned with intellectual property do
not need avoid using open-source until a legal precedence is set
with the GPL. For lots of GPL software, there is usually a BSD
equivalent.
-Vince
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Warren Togami wrote:
>GPL disallows dynamic and static linking of closed source stuff
I think you're making a common mistake that many new readers of the GPL
make, which is--the license doesn't specify what is allowed or disallowed.
What it does specify is, if you do A, you mu
Jimen Ching wrote:
This is not entirely accurate. IIRC Linus Torvalds made the linux
kernel "GPL with one exception", that exception is binary-only modules
are allowed (but generally frowned upon).
Normally the GPL disallows keeping source code closed even if you
dynamically link to it, and cas
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Warren Togami wrote:
>This is not entirely accurate. IIRC Linus Torvalds made the linux
>kernel "GPL with one exception", that exception is binary-only modules
>are allowed (but generally frowned upon).
>
>Normally the GPL disallows keeping source code closed even if you
>dyna
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 08:28, Charles Lockhart wrote:
> Links to the docs/articles I was reading are:
> http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031014204258580
Read Groklaw's response to this Forbes article. This quote below is the
key par
Disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer. The below is only what I think is true based upon
stuff I have read. Some of that was on Slashdot, so do check your own
facts and get a real lawyer.
Jimen Ching wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Charles Lockhart wrote:
q1. It makes sense to me that software compan
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Charles Lockhart wrote:
>q1. It makes sense to me that software companies that want to integrate
>GPL'd code should have to follow the GPL ruling that the derivative
>source has to be released with the product. I think it makes it tough
>on companies, but if they want the "fre
Charles Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> q1. ... What I'm not understanding is the context for this case: the
> code is running on Linksys routers, it's not like they're releasing a
> software product. It's an integrated package, the software in
> question wouldn't be run by a user. Ultimat
I read the Forbes article referenced at slashdot about the FSF going
after Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom (or something like it), and got a little
confused, had a couple of questions that I couldn't quite figure out
from reading other stuff.
q1. It makes sense to me that software companies that want t
19 matches
Mail list logo
