On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote:
> In many cases, it is to the benefit of the community that
> a standards body officially approves the specification, which
> would seem to translate to not allowing modified versions to
> be distributed
It doesn't translate that to me at all. It transl
Hi all,
This question came up in the process of drafting a
definition for "open file formats" -- what licenses are
acceptable for the specification documentation?
In many cases, it is to the benefit of the community that
a standards body officially approves the specification, which
would seem to t
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 12:47:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > > Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> > > Document), you grant to the recipient a
First a general explanation of the post Henning replied to:
The bottom half of that post is an attempt to disprove by
counterexample the theory that the ASP loophole cannot be closed
without causing unbearable impracticality or failing the
dissident test. That counterexample is an overlong, kludg
Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> > Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties
> > in possession of the Document the authority to g
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:29:32AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the
> > > recipient and all third parti
Anthony Towns writes:
> > Of course, now I need to understand why you think the
> > forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one
> > isn't.
>
> No, I think sending your tax return to the author of some program you
> modify is mind-bogglingly stupid, whereas sending the chan
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
> > without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs
> > of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Part of the point of free software is that everyone has a software
> > publishing factory on their desk, and it is the noxious copyright
> > regime that blocks them from using it.
> >
> > My server
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IANAL, but as far as I understood it, you are liable for everything
> you distribute and all all-warenty-excluded statements are null and
> void like they were not part of anything (At least for distribution
> from Germans to Germans).
In the US,
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Stephen Ryan wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 14:52, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > * If no changes have been made to the source, a URL to upstream may be
> > sufficient.
I don't think this is workable. First, it presumes the upstream allows
you to (ab)use it's bandwith this way
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 12:49:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This is the harder way of doing it, of course; the easiest way is to
> say that it's not the employees who own the copy of the program but the
> company, and that all the work the employees do is a "work for hire"
> and copyright is
* Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030319 21:21]:
> But at any rate, this isn't a new thing. What you're describing is
> just as much a problem with the GPL.
No. Current GPL allows me the described scenario. Forced distribution
would not.
> >> I'm certainly not familiar with German law (I'm
On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 14:52, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> You may want to go back and reread the message in question, I have a
> feeling you saw the bit about folks with big pipes and didn't read on
> about folks with smaller pipes.
>
> I gave suggested several ways in which things could be made easie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
> without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs
> of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires
> you to share them.
It may be po
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030318 16:54]:
>> Fine, in this hypothetical if he's unable to provide the source to
>> folks in the US, the license would not allow him to provide the
>> service to folks in the US. Exactly analogous to someon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Part of the point of free software is that everyone has a software
> publishing factory on their desk, and it is the noxious copyright
> regime that blocks them from using it.
>
> My server, even if over a tiny pipe, would be useful as an ASP
> pr
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I'm saying that in the most typical case, these folks will have big
>> servers & big pipes. I'm certainly not saying that it's ideal that
>> only folks with big servers and big pipes be able to provide AS
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:14:30PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I agree that we should be promoting freedom. However, I don't think
> that our licenses need to promote freedom, so long as they don't
> restrict it. That is, I don't think I'll ever see the day where we
> decide not to package BSD or
* Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030318 16:54]:
> > What if some small individual wants to start a server doing decss.
> > Not sitting in the USA another place under the jurisdiction of
> > the large media-industry, there might be nothing doable against him.
> > If he has to expose the source
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:54:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it
> > somehow better, I've already said:
> > ] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
> > ] in your diary, or whatever,
21 matches
Mail list logo
