S. Copyright Act calls a "useful article".) Why do you say it
is non-distributable in the first place?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the previous
(lengthy and multiple) discussions about this topic.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William Lee Irwin III writes:
> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is correct: DFSG
requires that anything without source be removed. As far
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
>> copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
>> distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
>> derivative works fro
Joe Moore writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
>> that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
>> of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
>> mec
Raul Miller writes:
> Ok, this is good -- I did not know that.
>
> However -- by this definition, the linux kernel is very definitely a
> derivative work, and the firmware is content which has been incorporated
> into the kernel.
>
> According to what you just cited, the concept of a collective wo
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
>> separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
>
> I'm writing in english, not greek.
>
> If you think there is some legally relev
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> I was using a minimal test case as an example here, but fine; consider a
> program that does many nontrivial things, one of which is printing such
> a string. For example it might print the source, count the number of
> times an identifier is used, count the number of lines
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> Incompetence (or laziness) on the part of the plaintiff is a perfectly
>> adequate reason to invoke either of those defenses. Until you cite
>> specific case law, I will disbelie
Raul Miller writes:
>> The deception is calling it "great lengths." When I said the GPL
>> "deals with collective works in just two paragraphs" you focused on
>> the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
>> other (because you don't like what it says?).
>
> You seem to be i
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> ls source.
I disagree here. Why do you claim that is derivative work? N
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
>> Program, it refers to "any program or other work" licensed under the
>> GPL; see section 0. It deals
Andrew Suffield writes:
>> Estoppel would bar a claim if the plaintiff first
>> contributed code to a kernel that already had binary blob components.
>> A merely decent lawyer may be able to invoke laches depending on how
>> long an author was silent after the first binary blob was added to the
>>
Raul Miller writes:
> It's a compilation work.
>
> [Some people might think that "compilation" and "aggregation" are the
> same thing -- but the GPL goes to great lengths to specify that it does
> apply where the compilation is a program and not where the compilation
> is not a program.]
I think
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
>> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>>
>> Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to conta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> [firmware as mere aggregation]
>> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
>
> Out of curiosity, could you please show an email from such copyright
> holder (with some referen
Andrew Suffield writes:
> The compiled kernel is almost certainly a derivative of the firmware
> included in it. A good lawyer might be able to get you out of
> this. Debian can *not* afford to assume that it would win such a case,
> not least because of a lack of funding for good lawyers.
Anyone
;t, it is merely a collection of
>> works.
>
> Don't be absurd. Any resulting binary is obviously derived from both.
Why is that obvious?
I have a binary on my bookshelf that is a combination of works with
conflicting licenses. Is it a work derived from all of them, or is
it just an unofficial Debian CD install?
Michael Poole
18 matches
Mail list logo
