On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on natural laws,
> on stuff that's already patented, on stuff with clear prior art, on
> trivial math operations and so on. Patents are being granted so quickly
> there's no way of
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 03:00:00 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> On the other hand, I think it is common for countries only to award
> copyright protection to works produced in foreign countries only to
> the extent that copyright exists in the country of origin. But I may
> be wrong.
Well, this is an
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:40:59 -0500 Jordan Abel wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2005 2:44 AM, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > > Wrong! It is perfectly legal in the United States, and I'm pretty
> > > sure in your country, to di
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:44:59 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > patents are problematic, and upto recently there where no software
> > patents in europe, so i don't really care. I am not sure about the
>
> AFAIK software patents are still not effective in Europe (as in you
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
On Apr 8, 2005, at 05:00, Henning Makholm wrote:
Hm, do we have anything in Debian with a "this is U.S. government
work, so copyright does not apply to it" license status?
IIRC, the "Hershey fonts" with Ghostscript.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
> point is that distribution of the linked _result_ is nevertheless
> subject to the c
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hm, do we have anything in Debian with a "this is U.S. government
> work, so copyright does not apply to it" license status? I seem to
> remember that -legal once concluded that it was as good as "public
> domain", but I cannot find it in the archives.
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>> GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
>
> Assuming you have an online connection and a frie
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
> > enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
>
> How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operat
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > > but t
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > > firmwares in the
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > but to a court.
>
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a m
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >...
> > > > If your statement was true
Ingo Ruhnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sound free to me, since not the output of the library is required to
> confirm to it, but the interface which generates the input for the
> library. So to me it looks basically just like something like GPLs 2c
> section applied to the web.
I think there's a
Francesco Poli wrote:
>The one in version 4 seems viable:
>
>| You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform,
>|or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
>|measures that prevent the recipient from exercising the
>|rights granted to them by section 8a and section 3 o
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* 5. Applications using cl-typesetting like Web servers, Web applications
*native applications, and other software applications must insert
*the following acknowledgment on the same page/windo
Sven Luther wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:57:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm
>wrote:
>
>>Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>>This has the strong smell of ranking some DFSG criteria
>>>above others in importance. If you want this kind of
>>>distinction, I think a less discriminatory w
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>Hi,
Hi.
>Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>>First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
>>making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
>>instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
>>possible.
>
>
>From section 3 of
Sven Luther wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>>This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
>>to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
>>from the copyright holder saying "this, to me, is the
>>preferred form for modifica
Sven Luther wrote:
patents are problematic, and upto recently there where no software
patents in europe, so i don't really care. I am not sure about the
AFAIK software patents are still not effective in Europe (as in you
cannot sue anyone for them yet, even if you can register some). Can
anyone
Henning Makholm wrote:
>Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [quoting me]
>
>>>No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is
>>>merely an aggregation. The two components are being coupled
>>>much more tightly than in the situation that the GPL
>>>discribes as "mere aggregation"
On Apr 8, 2005 2:44 AM, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > Wrong! It is perfectly legal in the United States, and I'm pretty
> > sure in your country, to distribute or redistribute copyrighted
> > works. Otherwise there
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:08 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
> >patents.
You have lots of "possible legal problems" of any kind. Basically
everyone can sue you for (almost) whatever he wants almost all ofth
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted
> in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can
> be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel.
I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither business
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:07:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PRO
On Fri, 8 April 2005 09:22:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>
> > As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part
> > of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without
> > problems for the use
Hi,
Humberto Massa wrote:
> First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
> making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
> instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
> possible.
>From section 3 of the GNU GPL, version 2:
Th
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> * 5. Applications using cl-typesetting like Web servers, Web applications
> >> *native applications, and other software applications must insert
> >> *the following acknowledgment on the same page/window than the
> >> interface
> >> *
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
> > Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to
> > where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its
> > initialization, without havin
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:03:01AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
> >David Schmitt wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>
> >>>[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
> >>>could distribute th
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [quoting me]
>
> >> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
> >> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
> >> than in the situa
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
> > this is not that tricky at all, and that the "mere
> > aggregation" clause applies to the combination, for various
>
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
> to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
> from the copyright holder saying "this, to me, is the
> preferred form for modification of the firmware a
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:50:14PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> >The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> >an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
> >disagree with that assertion now.
>
> This is only true if the result
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
> >Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> >>You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> >>nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> >>firm
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:55:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Also, "mere aggregation" is a term from the GPL. You can read what
> > > it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
> > > a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
> > > the prog
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
> > the kernel. Fu
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:57:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > This has the strong smell of ranking some DFSG criteria above others
> > in importance. If you want this kind of distinction, I think a less
> > discriminatory way would be to flag
40 matches
Mail list logo
