MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If they really meant to "steal" the work, then the whole license may
>> be invalid. In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
>> all. So I think a clarification is definitely in order.
>
>
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:14:23PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > php4/copyright: may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior
>> > written
>
> I should have quoted this one in full:
>
> 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
>
On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If they really meant to "steal" the work, then the whole license may
be invalid. In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
all. So I think a clarification is definitely in order.
Why? What form should such a
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:14:23PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > php4/copyright: may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written
I should have quoted this one in full:
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-06-03 00:20:48 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it simply means that they retain copyright in their portions,
> > not
> > that they're stealing your derivative works. That would require a
> > statement from the copyrig
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> It's been allowed mostly because they don't really enforce it. For
>> instance, Debian's modified version of Apache, which is a derived work,
>> has
>> "apache" in its name. Furthermore, they've stated th
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> It's been allowed mostly because they don't really enforce it. For
> instance, Debian's modified version of Apache, which is a derived work, has
> "apache" in its name. Furthermore, they've stated that they don't intend
> to enfo
Sebastian Ley wrote:
> Hello legal wizards,
>
> I need some advice about a license, my legal-english is not enough to
> determine whether the ipw2100 (popular wifi chipset) firmware by Intel
> is distributable in non-free.
>
> The license can be found here:
> http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmw
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> As a brief observation unrelated to this subthread: this also implicitly
> deals with the GPL#8 problem, by not requiring any special casing for
> the GPL at all.
>
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> I'd like to append something like the f
>> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > I would be quite comfortable allowing patent "retaliation"
>> > restrictions, but
>> > only if they were very carefully tailored. Specifically, license
>> > rights must terminate only if the work is alleged to constitute patent
>> > infringem
On 2004-06-03 00:20:48 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Perhaps it simply means that they retain copyright in their portions,
not
that they're stealing your derivative works. That would require a
statement from the copyright holder before I'd belive it, though.
As you note,
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source
>Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party.
This sounds completely unacceptable, if it means what it says. It's also
probably invalid in the US. Copyright assignments must be signed an
(Nathanael dropped from CC; I'm fairly certain he's subscribed.)
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:33:14PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.06.01.1951 +0200]:
> > The choice of law is my choice and not of the person who doesn't
> > follow the rules of the l
debian-legal, I am CC'ing y'all for hope of valuable input. Please
refer to http://bugs.debian.org/251983 for a history of this
discussion.
It's about the QPL, specifically term 6c. and the choice of legal
venue, which Nathanael claims to be in contradiction with the DFSG,
but which has never real
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:27:28 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> It seems to me that the person who puts something on line is usually
> regarded as the person doing the copying.
That is indeed what I have thought till a few days ago... And it's still
the most reasonable interpretation I can think
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
> > (and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
>
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd
On 02 Jun 2004 12:52:37 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
> GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some
> computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive.
Thus a downloaded package (e.g. from Deb
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
> GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some
> computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
> computers, legally speaking, do not *do* anythi
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
> > (and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
> (and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructi
20 matches
Mail list logo
