Mac wrote:
One of the bloggers pointed out that in the USA, breach of copyright can
be a criminal offence as well as a civil one
There was a proposal to make such a thing criminal in Europe, but AIUI,
it got rejected by the European Parliament earlier this year!
Do you (or Matthew) know
You do have to hand it to Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and their
colleagues - the genius evident in GPLv3 just takes your breath away:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/microsoft_the_copyright_infringer
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070709101318827
Mac
--
Mac wrote:
You do have to hand it to Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and their
colleagues - the genius evident in GPLv3 just takes your breath away:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/microsoft_the_copyright_infringer
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070709101318827
Mac
Mac wrote:
As I understand it, GPLv3 is not a contract; it's a waiver of copyright
that passes to those who also waive copyright. This is what's so clever
about it - it just doesn't work like a contract or licence. I think
this is why patent/copyright lawyers have such trouble with it:
On 7/10/07, Mark Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mac wrote:
As I understand it, GPLv3 is not a contract; it's a waiver of copyright
that passes to those who also waive copyright. This is what's so clever
about it - it just doesn't work like a contract or licence. I think
this is why
Mark Harrison wrote:
It's hard to see, however, how any legal document written on 1st July
could retrospectively apply to a contract signed on the 30th June unless
the contract made specific provision for itself to be modified.
I may be wrong, but I thought that's exactly what GPLv2 had
Mark Harrison wrote:
Mac wrote:
You do have to hand it to Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and their
colleagues - the genius evident in GPLv3 just takes your breath away:
I'm no lawyer, but in the UK at least, there are at least two problems
with the legal analysis here:
- I had understood
Matthew East wrote:
snip
...The GPL is a license (hence the L) by which (among
other things) the licensor and copyright holder grants the licensee the
right to use and redistribute the program subject to certain conditions.
A license is a type of contract, in this case between the program
Mac wrote:
That seems to me not contract, but a beautiful and unexpected
inversion of copyright law.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this line of argument... Let me
explain my understanding first, then someone can tell me what I'm missing...
- A contract is a legally binding agreement
Lee Tambiah wrote:
Without disscussion I think the GPL 3 is a very good license which
protects Free Software and overall should strengthen it.
I agree.
I agree that you, and any programmer, should have the right to choose
the GPLv3 in new products you create. However, I also believe that
Hiya
* Mac:
Matthew East wrote:
That seems to me not contract, but a beautiful and unexpected
inversion of copyright law.
A beautiful inversion of copyright law isn't a legal concept.
The extract you've cited from Eben isn't addressing the mechanism by
which an author who publishes
11 matches
Mail list logo
