Sam Bull schreef op 06-06-2016 17:02:
Sam Bull schreef op 06-06-2016 17:02:
As the patches substantially change the original code base, it is very
likely to be considered a derivative, without needing to take into
account all these other more complex factors.
Of course, thank you, thanks clea
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 12:58 +0200, Xen wrote:
> Because of that it will be judged according to cases such as:
> - game genie vs nintendo
> - artic vs midway
> - formgen vs micro star
So, firstly, the GPL is a copyright licence, so the conversation has
always been about copyright law. The only thin
rk is full rights
reserved by default, if you have not seen a license or anything to
suggest you have more rights, then why do you suddenly think you have
all the rights to someone else's work?
Whoever ever said I thought I had all the rights?
This case was only about modification of it an
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 20:39 +0200, Xen wrote:
> > This exactly has happened many times. If you take a proprietary
> > piece
> > of software, make changes and resell it (breaking the license
> > agreement
> > you received it under), then the original authors are perfectly in
> > their rights to take
Sam Bull schreef op 02-06-2016 16:33:
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:35 +0200, Xen wrote:
The intention of the GPL is not really relevant.
What happens is that the authors remain to have a say about how the
product is used, if copyright is at play (at least the idea of
copyright).
Yes, and the au
Thank you Sam for yet again wading thru all of these misconceptions about the
GPL and copyright licenses. It really is very clear. The GPL allows people to
modify the software ONLY if they agree to the conditions of the license, just
like any other copyright holder does when they LICENSE softw
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:35 +0200, Xen wrote:
> The intention of the GPL is not really relevant.
>
> What happens is that the authors remain to have a say about how the
> product is used, if copyright is at play (at least the idea of
> copyright).
Yes, and the authors stated they require you to
Sam Bull schreef op 02-06-2016 13:36:
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:31 +0200, Xen wrote:
> So I think the unfairness is very much there now. Spengler is now
> actually getting something for nothing, where before he was not,
> and
> the whole intention of many of the contributors to linux has been
> s
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:31 +0200, Xen wrote:
> > So I think the unfairness is very much there now. Spengler is now
> > actually getting something for nothing, where before he was not,
> > and
> > the whole intention of many of the contributors to linux has been
> > subverted.
> Untrue. There was n
concernedfoss...@teknik.io schreef op 01-06-2016 23:57:
To my knowledge, the intention of most of those who license their work
out under the GPL is essentially to recieve a different form of
payment:
Maybe that is a subverted reason now. I don't think that was so in the
past. This is a rather
To my knowledge, the intention of most of those who license their work out
under the GPL is essentially to recieve a different form of payment:
Rather than demanding a monetary reward upfront, the hope, and the license is
the written vehicle for the possible fulfillment of that hope, is that the
plain why someone would need to do the suing and for what
reason.
I want to add in conclusion.
That it should be. About.
The right. To make a difference.
It should be about the right to make a difference. The most important
right is the right to make a difference ;-).
Regards, and ku
12 matches
Mail list logo
