tween the version we can understand, and the version the
computer can understand - they are "equivalent but different". There's
no such similarity for art. :-)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/neoafjroaj1lf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
t;the GPL is useless for
artists", which I think is the whole point of this discussion! :-)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/deto1lfexs0lf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
nt CAN
change the licence from GPL3 to GPL2 (or vice versa) because the *grant*
gives him permission.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
e language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall
not apply to this License.
Choice of law and venue. Yucky. The QPL has it (see, for example,
deal.ii), so ftpmasters must think it is ok. I do not know of any
analogous "loser pays" provisions in any licenses in main.
C
make any US judgement unenforceable on me (or MJ if he demanded change
of venue).
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
In message <7fdf4c21068c1acb3ed732c0cf862c1e.chere...@mccme.ru>,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Hi Anthony!
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:03:45 +0000, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the
licence (which you're no
In message <65986059fd940d55852a9fc4350fadd5.chere...@mccme.ru>,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Hi Anthony!
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:17:48 +0000, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
Or if they receive an UNALTERED copy from you! Because if you change the
licence (which you're no
sion" wording because that would be
invalid for any recipient beyond the first person to get it direct from
the copyright holder.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "un
What is removing
the option to use v2, if not an unpermitted "further restriction"? While
this may be a legal grey area, it isn't a grey moral area - it's just
unacceptable.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debi
In message <20091217024135.af5a9f7...@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray
writes
Andrew Dalke wrote:
On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think
>it is, then I already have read it and came to the
right, it's proprietary.
"proprietary" == "property". If it's copyright, it has an owner,
therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
In message ,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Hi Anthony!
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:44:35 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of
them can say "actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence".
Why do you think th
doesn't specify a version, the only
reasonable assumption is it means 'the only version' and the only one
that ever satisfied that was v1".
So. Does section 14 actually make legal sense? Me dunno ... but it was
written by a lawyer ...
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
In message <20091214220044.1cc797d6@firenze.linux.it>, Francesco
Poli writes
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:36:58 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
That's why, actually, given the choice of LGPL 2.1 or 3, much as I
haven't investigated 3 very much, I'll almost cert
In message <06db76b9-3d28-44ab-82c8-e23917bf3...@dalkescientific.com>,
Andrew Dalke writes
On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
(And you might guess I read groklaw avidly, where there's a lot of
emphasis on getting things right.)
Sorry, but I don't know
not you, so
your choice of v3 does not constrain their right to choose.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
In message ,
Alexander Cherepanov writes
Hi Anthony!
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:24:36 +, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
Let's say I write
In message ,
Andrew Dalke writes
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message , Andrew Dalke
writes
Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
Here is relevant commenta
In message <76e62a33-41da-414c-a485-7819eb35f...@dalkescientific.com>,
Andrew Dalke writes
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message
, Andrew
Dalke writes
I'm always wary of explicitly relicencing. The GPL doesn't permit
it, and by doing so you are
cence of the work as a whole is
the subset of the individual licences - here v3 - but my code still
remains v2+.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
ay, you're leaving (the licence of) JUMBO/CML unchanged, but
distributing CDK (including JUMBO/CML) under the LGPL. And the recipient
of CDK can strip JUMBO/CML out of it and use it under the Artistic
licence as the author intended.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery
obviously mean that the authors or some other rights holder (such as in
the case of a work for hire) being granted a limited monopoly on
repdoucing the work, among other things.)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
In message , Raúl Sánchez Siles
writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message , Raúl Sánchez Siles
writes
From what you've said, I think the way forward is apparent. As you
surmise, accepting GPL v3 contributions isn't possible with the current
project status saying the project
ent v2 status. It DOES stop a
developer throwing a spanner in the works by contributing some new
v2-only code which will prevent you from relicensing. And it makes clear
to developers where you are planning to go.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
proposition - you can't
grant SOME of the GPL rights and not others and call it GPL'd. But if
you grant ALL the GPL rights, there is nothing to stop you granting MORE
rights on top of the GPL rights (such as the "link to OpenSSL" right :-)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
e" is v2-only.
Once you've got your head round the fact that only the code AUTHORS (or
rather, owners) can change the licences, and that the project licence is
simply the largest proper subset of the individual licences, then your
way forward will be logically apparent. Whether you lik
y well be dictated to you by the
need to be compatible, in which case all the original copyright has been
lost, and the port is totally yours.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject o
ply, are ONLY
relevant in so far as they apply to stuff for which *you* hold the
copyright.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
not a copyright one. But
it's not applicable here because the people you're asking to apply the
licence AREN'T the authors, and don't have the legal right to apply the
licence.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
odification:
The Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program.
I've read Dmitrjs response, and it seems to me this should be covered by
a trademark licence. Explicitly split the copyright and trademark
grants, and you'll probably be fine.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Antho
In message <4a253aae.4040...@debian.org>, Giacomo A. Catenazzi
writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <20090530071729.gh30...@matthew.ath.cx>, Matthew Johnson
writes
On Sat May 30 00:21, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
I would really like to distribute the documentation
like North Korea) lasts for a *minimum* of 50 calendar years
after creation.
You can't state the worst case and then assume it applies without
knowing anything about the author :-) You can state the probable best
case, and then assume it probably applies...
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W.
In message ,
Ken Arromdee writes
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>I was under the impression that the FSF thinks that if it's illegal to
>link a program with GPL software and distribute that, it's also
>illegal if you
>just distribute the other progra
tuation you describe. The distributor isn't
distributing GPL'd software, so he doesn't need it. The user doesn't
need the GPL in order to *use* the GPL'd software - that is EXplicit in
the GPL.
So where's the violation? Who is copying/distributing/using GPL software
i
or anybody with a criminal conviction no matter how
long ago is a problem there too - I think the stats say about 30% of
young adult brits now have a criminal record :-(
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.
In message <20090410141624.gb28...@thorin>, Robert Millan
writes
I reply to this separately, because it's quite off-topic and unrelated
to the problem at hand. I don't want to add noise to the wnpp log.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:37:22AM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
T
rld places the SPIRIT of the grant much higher than the letter (okay,
the letter has to be correct, but in the Free Software world, abusing
the spirit makes enemies!).
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
In message <874owy8qth@benfinney.id.au>, Ben Finney
writes
"Anthony W. Youngman" writes:
Basically he should put there "(c) Hubert" and "licence GPLv3+".
Small nit (and all in my layman's understanding): Copyright notices,
when they were require
In message <20090408212528.ga19...@thorin>, Robert Millan
writes
[ Adding Hubert Figuiere (gnote upstream) to CC, note that he's probably not
subscribed ]
Hi Anthony,
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 09:20:44PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <20090408194833.ga5...@t
e, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD,
the second uses "LGPL 2.1 or later" and the third uses "GPL 3" then the
Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to the work
as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to strip out parts
of
e of paper, but presumably no different
from (if I've got the right language) VHDL which is used to lay out a
printed circuit board. And both of them are in some cases written in
directly by their practitioners, and in other cases are generated by
program generators.
Cheers,
Wo
al. If,
however, the pdf has loads of embedded links etc ...
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
r licence for the stuff for which you hold the
copyright, and the other stuff you don't hold the copyright for).
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
iven you the right to use it under a later licence.
But unless they gave you the right to CHANGE the licence (which I doubt)
then you don't have the right to take 1.1 away.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ.
cenced.
What is the FLTK trying to achieve? The guarantee provided by the GPL is
that, as a recipient, you do not need to care what the licence is on the
individual bits. If ANY of it is GPL, you can safely behave *as* *if*
*all* of it is GPL, even if it isn't.
Cheers,
Wo
an't relicence someone else's code.
But if you licence your added code WITHOUT the extra permissions, then
you have effectively removed those permissions from the entire work. To
get those permissions back, a recipient would have to strip your code
from the work.
Cheers,
W
he name and trademarks of NEITHER W3C NOR of the copyright holders may
be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to this document or its
contents without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright
in this document and in the documents that link to this license will at
all time
In message <49aed85f.5nvvciqyno+9xuyd%...@phonecoop.coop>, MJ Ray
writes
"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote:
In message <49ae6b15.fqybgcvyp1ig7h3c%...@phonecoop.coop>, MJ Ray
writes [...]
>Do the copyright terms of things on iplayer actually have expiry
>dates, or is th
In message <49ae6b15.fqybgcvyp1ig7h3c%...@phonecoop.coop>, MJ Ray
writes
"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote:
Not the Debian position, but more the general Free Software attitude of
"respect other peoples' copyrights" ...
get-iplayer should implement a technical
oftware respects the copyright holder's wishes.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
ause
they are too trivial. replace if required".
I'm not sure how the Debian ftp-masters will take that, but if there
really is no other way of re-implementing it, then it truly is
unprotectable.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNS
amely
American :-( courts.
But I think that's why I'm so dismissive of all this "IANAL because it's
illegal to give legal advice in America" stuff. My government recognises
the insanity of trying to enforce its laws against foreign citizens, and
I think it insane
In message <200901201403.48978.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
writes
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 12:49:28 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are
telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have
onl
In message <200901191340.03678.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
writes
On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com>, Sean Kellogg
writes
>Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to a
"if a European company could sue in Europe, then an
American company must be able to also. If the European company can't
sue, then neither can an American company in like circumstances".
Actually, that also means a European-created work can be copyright in
the US after the Eu
esco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat
parochial (and ludicrous).
No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try
to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign
nations and nationals.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@
GPL.
Basically, the LGPL requires that any code that is *strongly* linked to
yours is affected by your licence, but if the person using your code
keeps it as a self-contained library, they can link that library into
their code without their main code being affected - just any
modification
In message <87iqomapdk@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer
writes
* Anthony W. Youngman:
The GPL requires more than just source code. In particular, "further
restrictions" are not allowed. So having source code is not
sufficient for compliance.
Yes, but if I'm a
In message <871vvbv5st@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer
writes
* Anthony W. Youngman:
Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode?
Pseudocode? Do you mean compiled code or bytecode?
I meant bytecode - along the lines of "basic is interpreted code, but
sometim
ct with intent to
cause confusion with Windows" even if they didn't have a registered
trademark. They'd probably have lost on the grounds confusion was
unlikely, but they'd've had a case.)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBS
the interpreter is
irrelevant.
And when the script is run, it is the end-user doing the linking, so the
GPL is irrelevant.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
e GPL is of no use.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
y work as yours.
Much as you might disagree with HOW they've done it, you can't
reasonably object to WHY they've done it.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this is called a "contract of adhesion", and
is void ... as Ben said, you can't (in most circumstances) be held to an
agreement where you were unable to provide informed consent (ESPECIALLY
if the counter-party was responsible for that inability!).
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CAN'T then DISTRIBUTE the result. The GPL says you must
distribute the non-GPL code as if it were GPL, but you don't own that
code and can't change the licence. So you can't comply with both
licences at the same time, so you can't distribute.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Y
PL code. And if the 3rd-party
licence didn't give you those rights to pass on, you can't mix that code
with GPL code and pass it on because the two licences conflict - the GPL
says you MUST pass on the rights, the 3rd-party licence says you CAN'T
pass on the rights, and the only opt
e you don't think the GPL is free,
because modifying GPL software means you can't run it without fulfilling
certain restrictions (namely "you're not allowed to share just the
binaries").
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
eaningless in the UK because the
vendor would be liable under SOGA (Sale Of Goods Act) anyway.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ke this file is a
"collection of data". As such, it can't be copyrighted!
I'd agree with Arnoud. The licence on the data file won't affect the
program. But there's a good chance that the licence on the data file is
invalid ...
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman -
asically it was along the
lines of "anything else - even components required for successful
compilation - are mere aggregation as far as the source goes :-)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
y version), then it is compatible with any LGPL
library (any version).
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ge the licences, but the result effectively has the licence of GPL
v3 (or perhaps
GPL v3 or Later).
I know I'm being pedantic. But woolly thinking is behind most confusion
of licencing, and if people actually UNDERSTOOD what is going on, we
wouldn't have a lot of the licencing t
for gpe-cash".
To re-iterate. You are NOT changing the pre-existing licence on code
you've borrowed. But because of the mix of licences, the only licence
that is valid for the combined work is v3.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as a whole would only be distributable under
the Jagged Alliance licence, and probably wouldn't qualify for
distribution with Debian.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Armstrong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked
for that marketed it in America.
And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the tim
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gervase Markham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
And as I see it, if I say "My program is licenced under GPLv3 with
the following exceptions ...", if the user ignores the exception, they
have broken the terms I s
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco
Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
discussed.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly
o
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Kellogg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Monday 02 July 2007 01:57:07 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the
right to rule the world?
No, but the US government has the right to enforce
fact, I am certain that ". To express
uncertainty, it might be clearer to say "I fear that " or
"I think that ".
You probably mean most native *American* speakers ...
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(or your customers) and leave everybody else at risk.
Patents are a risk factor for Americans. This clause just says you have
to share the risk equally, if a distributor negotiates unequal
protection then it's a violation of v3.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTE
t difficult for
the GPL to contradict them.
The main effect of this clause will probably be to discourage people
from doing this sort of thing - I'm not at all sure that clause would
actually have teeth in a court of law.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UN
levant bar association.
I think bar association members are called barristers - and most lawyers
are not barristers but solicitors.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sically claiming that if American law flatly contradicts the
law of some other country, then people living in that country have to
ignore their own law and abide by American law instead !!!
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
IF it was under v3 - they do not have the right to re-licence
it under v3.
And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
version 3 or later"?
I think you need to, though, because they ARE two DIFFERENT licencing
criteria, and you do NOT have the
k". Not that I'd advise being that harsh to your customers, but
at least you can legally say "shove off" without being in breach of the
licence (good customer relations says you should say "okay, I'll burn
you another copy" :-)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
just like you have to do.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an take
any of my code that claims to be GPL'd and use it under the LGPL.
So if Kern has said that the addition of this extra freedom "applies to
all his code in Bacula", then anybody can add a copy of this statement
to COPYING.TXT and be covered.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Poole
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Anthony W. Youngman writes:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I'm in the UK, and
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified
"England and Wales", I'd probably have a very n
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wesley J. Landaker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wouter Verhelst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowle
e "choice of venue" is a demand by the licensor for
something back. Therefore any licence with a "choice of venue" clause
cannot be a pure licence.
Oh - and the GPL does NOT "demand anything back", so there is no payment
*to* *the* *licensor*.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthon
;s expense :-)
Look at SCOG and how they got dealt with in Germany ...
That said, I don't like venue clauses. In the UK, as a private person it
is pretty much automatic that if I'm sued, I get to specify venue.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your own words condemn you :-)
This is an accurate description of linux. Linux is "owned by a
proprietor", namely whoever (singular or plural) happens to own the
copyright(s).
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
" CD jacks up the cost of a
printed manual/book significantly. Given that a typical O'Reilly sells
for between £20 and £40, adding a CD will also add about £5 tax to the
price (books are VAT-free, adding a CD makes the *entire* *package*
liable to 17.5% tax).
Cheers,
Wol
--
A
* was "US law", a UK court probably would award costs
against the winner if that was normal UK procedure.
(This situation normally arises when a defendant tries to settle, and in
the end a trial awards lesser damages than the defendant's offer to
settle. This has been known to
s
> preferred.
"unambiguous under the law", but technical ambiguous. What character
encoding should be used?
The same encoding as the rest of the file.
And if that encoding is 7-bit ascii ???
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the previous paragraph.
Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG?
No distributor with any sense would touch this with a bargepole. Your
grant of licence is self-contradictory, and as such it would not be wise
to rely on it...
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Young
ng of "copying" under
copyright law, if I have a printout of the symbol and design a copy of
it using a computer, then as far as copyright law goes it is not a
derivative. It may be a breach of trademark...
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
lfball/daisywheel/lineprinter doesn't have it? Or like me, it isn't on
my keyboard, and I haven't learnt how to make my keyboard produce a
copyright symbol?
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
