On 10/31/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Person C creates a driver knowing with properly names defines and
comments explaining why he does what and where to easily readable
structures of the register mappings of the hardware. Person C then
goes and obfuscates the code into p
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
> bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware
> either.
This point is a controversial point. Different people make different
claims.
> > It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
> the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a on
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on nat
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
> >works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
> >separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
> >you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
> On Apr 04, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is waiting for NEW processing, but i also believe that the dubious
> > copyright assignement will not allow the ftp-masters to let it pass
> > into the archive, since it *IS* a GPL violation, and thus i am doing
> > this in order to solve that
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 12:15:57PM -0500, Christopher Priest wrote:
> Is this helpful
> http://web.archive.org/web/2711071330/sanjose.alteon.com/license-agree.shtml
This license doesn't let us distribute the software.
This is pretty clearly stated in the first two sentences of the first
two n
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:47:50AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
The current GR on debian-vote attempts to resolve some of these
issues.
FYI,
--
Rau
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:55:47AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> What rights do the GPL'd software recipient have? The GPL grants
> some rights not granted by copyrights law. I made an extensive
> document and posted it to d-l, but no-one seemed to listen or to
> understand. All ok. IRT making der
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:46:22PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> The interpretation favoured by kernel hackers is that anything that runs
> on the host CPU is part of the program, and anything that runs on the
> card is just data for the program to operate on.
This distinction isn't relevant when
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not "this work
> is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is." Humberto has
> cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary images) shoul
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:05:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The kernel (I assume as a whole) is a derivative work of what?
Earlier versions of the kernel.
--
Raul
> > If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
...
> > work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html discusses the
> differences be
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 relevant document which means that a
> >False dichotomy.
> >
> >There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
> >derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every copyright
> law following the Geneva convention *does* such a d
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: << a "work based on
> the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
> copyright law >> DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
>
> _Not_ collective/compilation/antholo
> 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 ignore
> > However, this sentence makes clear that "works based on the Program"
> > is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
> > collective works based on the Program.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> In addition, mere aggregation of another w
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 with collective (in contrast to
> derivative) works in just two p
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > For someone to claim that data compiled into a program but not executed
> > is "mere aggregation" is nonsense. Is a program that prints the source
> > code to GNU ls (stored as a string constant in the program, not an
> > external file) a derivative of GNU ls? Of course i
20 matches
Mail list logo
