On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:39:21PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip arguments that might have been worthy of rebuttal on
> debian-legal five months ago]
> I'm not trying to be snotty about this, but if you want to engage in
> the
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At this point, there seem to be quite a
> few people who agree that the FSF's stance ("copyright-based license")
> and the far-from-novel one that you advance ("unilateral license /
> donee beneficiaries") are untenable in the jurisdictions with w
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip arguments that might have been worthy of rebuttal on
debian-legal five months ago]
I'm not trying to be snotty about this, but if you want to engage in
the debate about the proper legal framework in which to understand the
GPL, I thi
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Um, it is true that the rules for interpreting the meaning of licenses
>> are more or less the same as the rules for interpreting contracts. It
>> does not follow that licenses are therefore contracts.
>
> The words "license" and "contract" are
On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > An action for copyright
> > infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
> > instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
> > through th
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It probably would be a good idea for the openttd people to
> make sure their engine can do other stuff -- maybe implement
> a ship-based game, maybe a photo organizer, whatever...
> That would certainly make their position stronger.
Not if it we
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the ambiguities have to be valid ambiguities.
>
> That's where we seem to differ on this issue.
I think there is little question that the "work based on the Program"
definition + erroneous paraphrase in Section 0 is either: 1) a "valid
amb
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An action for copyright
> infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
> instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
> through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you
> have succ
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the
> published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
> inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
> that he can have no reasonable basis unde
Pharmacy - No prescription required
http://aryu.pma0bq7imh7fbq7.haetndhaet9.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We're talking about something more like the Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.
> > v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. case.
>
> So there are as wide a variety of games playable on the Transport
> Tycoon D
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Quite literally: the court didn't address the scope of
> > license issue.
>
> Bullshit. Decision at http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/050800ruling.html ,
> which I already pointed out to y
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to you. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that such
> binaries are undistributable, Debian is still not affected, since we
> aren't contributing to their distribution, only their creation.
That line of argument has its limits,
On 5/19/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 09:48:25AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in
> > question?
> > If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name
> > X,
> > it
Nicholas Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
> > maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
> I think it would be helpful if the driver was named after the
> technology. If the bluetooth driver was named
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:23:26PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > I was only concerned about this part of your statement:
> >
> > > The rest of
> > > us, as far as I can tell, think that giving a user a script that makes it
> > > easier to
On 5/19/05, Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm slightly confused by this.
>
> In the case of OpenTTD, you seem to be asserting that because OpenTTD has
> no use other than to combine with the copyrighted data files -- to present
> a scene similar to the original Transport Tycoon, the work
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:38:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > My argument is that infringment has to actually take place in order for
> > > there to be contributory infringement. If this is not the case, please
> > > explain how there ca
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the
> > > functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't
> > > copyrightable in the first place.
> >
>
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:23:26PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I was only concerned about this part of your statement:
>
> > The rest of
> > us, as far as I can tell, think that giving a user a script that makes it
> > easier to compile a certain binary does not equate to distribution of th
Michael K. Edwards said:
> On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about
>> the game engine.
>
> We're talking about a theory of derivative work that doesn't require
> literal copying. In the game context, that would be closer
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip Raul's honest and polite response]
> I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been
> making. In other words, I see you asserting that things which are
> sometimes true must always be true.
>
> In the case of the "cont
On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Thanks, Roberto. The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in
> On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My argument is that infringment has to actually take place in order for
> > there to be contributory infringement. If this is not the case, please
> > explain how there can be contributory infringement without any actual
> > infringement ta
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the
> > functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't
> > copyrightable in the first place.
>
> "Mise en scene", my friend, "mise en scene".
We're not talk
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 03:18:10PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Actually, some jurisdictions (such as the US) recognize theories of
> > vicarious and/or contributory infringement under which the scripter
> > can be held liable for inciti
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At issue in a breach of contract claim. Not in a claim of copyright
> > infringement -- not unless and until it is proven that the contract
> > was justly terminated for material brea
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps that is indeed what you would do. I don't consider lawyers to
> be the only persons capable of reading the law for themselves. They
> are the only ones authorized to offer certain forms of legal advice
> and legal representation,
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip horsepucky and irrelevancies]
> > This is relevant to OpenTTD, for instance, because its authors don't
> > (AFAIK) have a license from the copyright holder on Transport Tycoon
> > Deluxe to create a sequel/adaptation/whatever, and so they don
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> not. Does anyone happen to have a six-month-old copy of the FSF FAQ?
>
>From 11-2004:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
-Roberto
--
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 03:18:10PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Actually, some jurisdictions (such as the US) recognize theories of
> vicarious and/or contributory infringement under which the scripter
> can be held liable for inciting and/or abetting the direct infringer's
> conduct. My arg
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
> > >
> > > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
> > > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
> > > the services of a lawyer (at wh
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You've failed to offer any authority for your assertion that
> > derivative and collective works are disjoint.
>
> BS. I've given you treaty, statute, case law, Nimmer, the works.
You've adequately proven that derivative works and col
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:18:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That bit would only be relevant if Debian was doing the things that got
> > > Napster in trouble. We aren't.
> >
> > Or i
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And once again, you're the only one who thinks we're doing this. The rest of
> us, as far as I can tell, think that giving a user a script that makes it
> easier to compile a certain binary does not equate to distribution of the
> same binary.
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This "scope of license" construction does not involve any fine
> > > judgments about whether the licensee's return performance is up to
> > > snuff.
> >
> > If the GPL is an offer of contract, the only remedy explicitly included
> > in
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Still working on your proof by repeated assertion, are you?
> > Collective works are not derivative works under copyright law, as I,
> > Humberto, and Batist have proven to our own and
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:18:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That bit would only be relevant if Debian was doing the things that got
> > Napster in trouble. We aren't.
>
> Or if we're doing similar things.
>
> Such as: making available co
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 09:48:25AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
> If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
> it should be legal to name it "driver for X".
Yes, and there should be no
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:54:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > You failed to quote the bit about how what Napster was doing wasn't
> > supposed to be illegal.
>
> That bit would only be relevant if Debian was doing the things that got
> Napst
On 5/18/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK, let's clarify that. There is a particular legal use of the word
> > "license", as in the phrase "scope of the license", which refers
> > specifically to an individual provision in
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:54:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> You failed to quote the bit about how what Napster was doing wasn't
> supposed to be illegal.
That bit would only be relevant if Debian was doing the things that got
Napster in trouble. We aren't.
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:29:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
> > > to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Na
> > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
> >
> > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
> > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
> > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
> > an interesting commentary --
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyways, I've never advocated relying on the circulars
> > in place of the copyright act. I was just thinking that
> > the circulars explained some reasoning about the copyright
> > act that you seemed to be having difficulty with. Thi
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:29:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
> > to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's *flagrant* facilitation of
> > copyright infringemen
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
> to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's *flagrant* facilitation of
> copyright infringement.
Yes. Note that there was a senator who thought that the laws whi
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
> > believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
> > the "FSF FAQ".
>
> For the record, I disag
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
> > precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather
> > than the reasoning that they contain.
>
> Actua
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
> believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
> the "FSF FAQ".
For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
It is, in places, a bi
On 5/18/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Logically, the process used here is more complex than that used by
> > > gunzip, but effect is similar.
> >
> > If nothing else, 17 USC 117 and dynamic linking absolutely protect you
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:11:56PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm not saying that Debian is Napster.
You have made a direct comparison between Debian making it easy for a user
to build an OpenSSL-linked Quagga, and Napster's *flagrant* facilitation of
copyright infringement.
> I'm saying that w
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
> precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather
> than the reasoning that they contain.
Actually, I made the (perhaps false) assumption that you had
quoted
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder,
> and didn't even have have license.
>
> That doesn't seem very interesting.
You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Point taken. However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in
> section 6:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor
On 19/05/05, Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spanish law says (the ugly translation is mine): "The following
> un-disclaimable and inaliable rights belong to the author: [...] 6. Retiring
> the work from the market, due to a change in their intellectual or moral
> convictions, after a p
> I'm not at all sure that all advertising or guarantee restrictions are
> unacceptable to us.
Yes ;-)
It was a poor choice of words on my part. I had intended that to mean
any advertising or guarantee restrictions of the kind outlined in my
original email (viz. trademarks on the splash screen an
O Xoves, 19 de Maio de 2005 ás 19:52:28 +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet escribía:
> That's an aspect of EU copyright law I'm not aware of. Can you
> tell me which Berne provision or EU directive this is?
Please, next time just say directly "that's not so" and it'll be easier on
my health. Thanks.
And
"Distribute" does not mean "bits on the wire".
It means something more like "make available", though it also has
implications of releasing control.
http://google.com/search?q=define%3Adistribute
--
Raul
In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder,
and didn't even have have license.
That doesn't seem very interesting.
--
Raul
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No matter what the court ruled about Napster's CD ripping/copying ability,
> that's not what they originally got in trouble for. They got in trouble for
> making it easy for people to trade MP3's, by maintaining a repository of
> illegal music
For more observations on the legal basis for finding a derivative work
where no literal copying has taken place, see Palladium Music v.
EatSleepMusic at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/10th/046061.html . For GPL
purposes, it is significant that Palladium's copyrights were held
"invalid a
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O M?rcores, 18 de Maio de 2005 ?s 21:46:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez escrib?a:
> > That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
> > code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
> > *that* code under the GPL. About the only
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:16:10AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This "absolute protection" did not seem to protect Napster, nor did
> > > the home recording act.
> >
> > Despite their claims to the contrary, Napster's *primary function* was
On 5/19/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
> If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
> it should be legal to name it "driver for X". (Of course, what is legal and
> what k
Isn't it always legal to use a trademark to refer to the product in question?
If you have a driver for a piece of hardware that has the trademarked name X,
it should be legal to name it "driver for X". (Of course, what is legal and
what keeps you from getting sued aren't nececssarily the same.)
On 5/19/05, Nicholas Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The company in question is willing to negotiate terms for a trademark
> license that is agreeable to all parties. Obviously any advertising or
> guarantee restrictions are unacceptable to us. Unlimited use of the
> trademark is unacceptabl
MJ Ray wrote:
> Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
> maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
I think it would be helpful if the driver was named after the
technology. If the bluetooth driver was named "harold" and the trident
driver named "poseidon" it wo
Nicholas Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What terms could we accept?
Who cares? Why not rename it and avoid the whole debate, if the
maintainer thinks their terms might be unacceptable?
> Can we accept the restriction that any modification to the product
> must, at a minimum, first strip t
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This "absolute protection" did not seem to protect Napster, nor did
> > the home recording act.
>
> Despite their claims to the contrary, Napster's *primary function* was to
> facilitate the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. Tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>technology. Unfortunately, the company's trademark guide makes the
>following restrictions on the use of the trademark:
>
>(1) the product (i.e. the Linux kernel) must display the trademark on
>the splash screen (or in the About... box);
>(2) the trademark must appear in
On 18/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But considering that "colorisation" is a technique based on the use of
> a computer and a laser, and that it permits (after the transfer of the
> original black-and-white film onto a videotape medium) the application
> of colors to a f
Achieve stronger and harder erections
http://www.prumie.net/ss/
World first Patch Technology for penis Enlargement
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello.
Please accept my apologies if I am flogging a dead horse. I have ST*W
but I cannot find a definitive solution to this problem. I did find a
thread [1] on debian-legal from last year but it had more questions
than answers ;-)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00236.html
I
74 matches
Mail list logo
