Török Edvin writes:
> On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
> > good questions. Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
> > US, there are two or three different ways to analyze
On 30 Jun 2006 13:43:48 -0400, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
good questions. Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
US, there are two or three different ways to analyze whether one work
is derived from
Your questions about what makes a work "derived" from a GPLed work are
good questions. Unfortunately, laws are not uniform on this; in the
US, there are two or three different ways to analyze whether one work
is derived from another copyrighted work, and I imagine most other
countries have their o
Hi,
I have a couple of questions regarding the distribution of GPL
software on commercial CDs.
[I know the advice from debian-legal doesn't have legal authority, but
I turned to your help, since you have a lot of experience dealing with
licenses/copyrights.]
[If this really is the wrong list, ple
Plonk.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
> "With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MySQL has not
> demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
> irreparable harm. Affida
On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> > > like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and wil
On 1/23/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> > like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
> > the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breac
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
> the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
> covenant to forbear from the exercise of
On 1/22/06, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am 2006-01-12 18:51:42, schrieb Alexander Terekhov:
>
> > BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta
> > downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5
> > plus postage cost.
>
> Too expen
Am 2006-01-12 18:51:42, schrieb Alexander Terekhov:
> BTW, I've just checked my records. I have 15 orders of MS winxp64 beta
> downloads on record. 14 copies are still available. Anyone? Just EURO 5
> plus postage cost.
Too expensive. :-P
> regards,
> alexander.
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
For once I agree with Alexander - you've read the preamble, not the
license, and usually the preamble does not have any legal force.
Andrew
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > I am not authorized to offer a
On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I am not authorized to offer a legal opinion, but the above is a "common
> sense", practitioner oriented reading of the terms of the GPL.
Except that you were mostly reading the manifesto part of the GPL
which doesn't belong to T&C ope
Daniel, et. al.:
Referring to the PREAMBLE section of the GPL ::
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4 , the below excerpts (quoted
portions herein) seem to imply that you only have to point the
reciepient to one site where he COULD get it if he so choose. I
use the preamble, a
On 1/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... not accepting the GPL ...]
> So in this case you cannot make copies
You can download copies without accepting the GPL.
> (nor modifying) of the software anymore.
And adapt/modify computer programs and make additional copies
under 17 USC 117 fro
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 1/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
In particular read section 4 of the GPL.
It says "You are not required to accept this License, since you
have not signed it." And I agree that you are not require to accept
this License (noting that signing a licens
On 1/17/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> In particular read section 4 of the GPL.
It says "You are not required to accept this License, since you
have not signed it." And I agree that you are not require to accept
this License (noting that signing a license agreement is not the
only wa
But couldn't B say he accepts the license for some copies, but not for others?
For the copies that A gave him, he can reject the license and distribute
them by copyright law (first sale). For anything that he wants to copy or
modify himself, he has to accept the GPL, but he can accept the GPL f
On 1/16/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
Pls don't mess up my game, Ken.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. Note also that modification and copying under 17 USC 117
(plus any other lawful activity under any other exceptions and
limitations to exclusive rights) doesn't trigger acceptance.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, olive wrote:
> > I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
> > copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
> > make more copies himself. B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of
> > them
> > as he wishes by
On 1/16/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> This is probably right. B will not break the law. However; the GPL give
> you permission to distribute the software only if you agree to it.
17 USC 109 (aka copyright exhaustion in Europe) gives you
"permission", not the GPL.
> If you don't agr
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> And I'm still not in prison. How come?
1. You have some kind of understanding with the copyright holder of
the program in question.
2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law.
I think his point is this
On 1/13/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The argument "what if it was Windows XP instead of GPL software" doesn't seem
> to work here. The first step would become "Person A can legally make and
> distribute a lot of copies of Windows XP to B..." This statement would be
> true f
On 1/13/06, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
> copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
> make more copies himself. B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of them
> as h
On 1/13/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov said on Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:27:27PM +0100,:
>
> > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
>
> 1. You have some kind of understanding with the copyright holder of
>the program in question.
Not really. I went to MS
On 1/13/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
> > to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.
>
> I think you've misunderstood "the GPL is not a contract" as meaning
> that
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
>
> 1. You have some kind of understanding with the copyright holder of
>the program in question.
>
> 2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law.
I think his point is this: Person A
Alexander Terekhov said on Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:27:27PM +0100,:
> And I'm still not in prison. How come?
1. You have some kind of understanding with the copyright holder of
the program in question.
2. You have not been prosecuted != you have not broken the law.
--
Mahesh T. Pai
Di
On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
> to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.
I think you've misunderstood "the GPL is not a contract" as meaning
that there are no obligations associated with re-distributing GPL
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Universe won't collapse as a result, believe me.
Isaac got it:
-
Further, my understanding is that Alexander was proposing lawfully acquiring
and distributing copies and not making new copies. If the law requires that
a backup
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.
Download some FSF's perl like emacs.
>
> 2) Buy a computer without that piece of software on it.
Check.
>
> 3) Install the software on that computer, since you
On 1/12/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
> >
> > Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first
> > sale".
>
> By your logic... I stole something once, I di
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> >
> > > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > > >
> > > > > O
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first sale".
By your logic... I stole something once, I didn't get caught, therefore
theft is not illegal.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
On 12 Jan 2006 12:32:41 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> > >
> > > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > >
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> >
> > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> > > > dist
On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>
> > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> > > distributing only the binary. put on the CD,
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> > distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the
> > source code to every binary on the CD is available
On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the
> source code to every binary on the CD is available from you to the
> person you gave th
Daniel Carrera said on Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:06:52PM +,:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> >As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
> >given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
> >"noncommercial". You have given no hint whether your distributio
On 1/12/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Alexander>
> Alexander> Well, I'm in the DE. But in both UK and DE *the Rome Convention on
> Alexander> on the law applicable to contractual obligations* governs its
> interpr
On 1/12/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
> > with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the
> > sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".
>
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the
sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".
I would be interested to hear afterwards
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
> with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the
> sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".
I would be interested to hear afterwards how many people actual
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if anyone asks, I
charge for the media and burn the CDs? So I just have to bring some
CDRs and I know they won't go to waste.
Sure, that should be ok.
My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of lapt
Hi Daniel!
You wrote:
> >This is also the easiest way to deal with your case - have copies of
> >the source on hand, and give them to anybody who asks for them
> >(charging extra for the extra media). Most people probably won't
> >ask.
>
> How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if a
On 11 Jan 2006 20:27:49 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benjamin A'Lee writes:
>
> > If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
> > whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
> > the law (in the US, UK, wherever)?
>
> Please s
On 1/12/06, Benjamin A'Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
> whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
> the law
Downloads aside for a moment and assuming that the GPL is a
bilateral contract (con
Benjamin A'Lee writes:
> If they refuse to provide you the source (or access to the source, or
> whatever), then they are in violation of the GPL. Is this not against
> the law (in the US, UK, wherever)?
Please stop feeding the troll. He lives in a land where words do not
mean what they reasona
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:36:42AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > > Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
> > > just download the tar.gz
On 1/12/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > > Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
> > > just download the tar.gz file and p
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
> > just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.
> >
> > Does this clause mean that everyone who is
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
> >give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
> >the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
> >access.]
> >
> >Tha
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> [And for reference, the doctrine of first sale is typically held to
> apply only when (amongst other things) (a) the work is sold,
The doctrine is codified in 17 USC 109. It is commonly called
"first sale", but the actual parameters of
Andrew Suffield wrote:
You aren't required to give copies of the source to
everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask
for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other
options either), then they would be breaking the law.
This is also the easiest way
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:44:32PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I
> just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD.
>
> Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out OpenOffice or
> Knoppix CDs is breaking the law?
Y
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:42:06PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
> >him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
> >redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restri
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without T&C.
> >
> > The rest is here:
> >
> > http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
>
> That looks doggy to me...
Why? BTW, can you really read and compreh
Sarge takes 14 binaries and another 14 source...
Just 'offer' the source code by mail, and hopefully noone will ask for it.
Andrew
On 1/12/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
> > give them to
Don Armstrong wrote:
What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
access.]
That's generally what we do at the Debian booth.
Now many CDs
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without T&C.
The rest is here:
http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
That looks doggy to me... I think I'll pass. Thanks anyways.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocume
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:42:06PM +, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Daniel> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Daniel> >It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it
from
Daniel> >him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
Daniel> >redistribute it (i.e. that acqu
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
> > him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
> > redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive c
Daniel Carrera writes:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
> > him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
> > redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
> > T&C you want (n
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
T&C you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> >As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
> >given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
> >"noncommercial". You have given no hint whether your distribution
> >could be considered
Just put a note in the CD case with your address listed and say that
if you want the source code, send $4-5 for media and postage for a CD.
Also list the URL for source downloads from the website. Most probably
no one will ask you for it. If someone does, the GPL does not specify
a timeframe, so yo
On 1/11/06, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... obligation to provide access to source code ...]
> Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all.
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any "I agree" manifestations of
Daniel Carrera writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> > As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
> > given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
> > "noncommercial". You have given no hint whether your distribution
> > could be considered commercial, and
Michael Poole wrote:
As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
"noncommercial". You have given no hint whether your distribution
could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
as to wh
Daniel Carrera writes:
> I hope that section 3c might save me here. Here's my reasoning: when I
> downloaded OpenOffice I didn't get the sources. So, by section 3b, I
> must have a promise to the sources. So, by section 3c, I can transfer
> that promise to you.
>
> Does that work?
As GPL section
Hello all,
Say I want to put OpenOffice.org on a CD and distribute it. According to
the L/GPL I have to include the source code or promise to have the
source code available for three years (section 3).
The problem is that the source code for OOo is a few gigabytes. :( It's
not practical to d
Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO. No one burning CDs
> > > from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
> > > even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO. No one burning CDs
> > from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
> > even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
>
> Err... They have received t
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Could people please comment on
>
> > http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
Could you reread and check?
> > I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
> > like the advice to
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As the GPL says:
> >
> > (2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
> > merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
> > some other third party--at cost alone.
>
> How long is this offer valid? The GPL
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One alternative which is not listed, which might make sense for some
> vendors, is to offer either "binary" or "binary + source" CD sets, for
> the same price. That way they don't have to worry about the 3-year
> offer, and customers don't have to bo
> As the GPL says:
>
> (2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
> merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
> some other third party--at cost alone.
How long is this offer valid? The GPL says "at least three years".
A non-profit third party
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Could people please comment on
> http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
> I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
> like the advice to be correct.
Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Could people please comment on
>
> http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
One alternative which is not listed, which might make sense for some
vendors, is to offer either "binary" or "binary + source" CD sets, for
the same p
Could people please comment on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice to be correct.
Regards,
Joey
--
All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory...
-- Larry Wall
Please
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Distributing GPL'ed software in object code or executable form, either
> as CD image through the Internet or as pressed or burned CD, requires
> the distributor (commercial or non-commercial doesn't seem to matter)
> to advise the person, who receives t
I'm trying a summary here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Distributing GPL'ed software in object code or executable form, either
as CD image through the Internet or as pressed or burned CD, requires
the distributor (commercial or non-commercial doesn't seem to matter)
to advise the person, who r
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 01:34:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 08:04:03PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I'm asking what A and B should do to bring themselves into
> > compliance. I don't want to sue or attack entities. I would like to
> > document the required behavi
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 08:04:03PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 4. What would be the proper way to solve this problem if a) or b) are
> > > not in complience with the license terms?
> > Are you asking what A and B should do if they wish to bring themselves
> > in
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 4. What would be the proper way to solve this problem if a) or b) are
> > not in complience with the license terms?
>
> Are you asking what A and B should do if they wish to bring themselves
> into compliance, or are you asking what can be done to legally force
> the
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 10:33:15AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> The current status quo:
>a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
> that runs the system (life system). This ISO only contains
> binary packages, no source. This CD is sold and distribut
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> In other words: you have opened a massive can of worms. :-)
*looking innocent* It wasn't me... :-) But I'd like the issue solved
so there's a clear statement for people, companies and entities to get
pointed to in order to preserve them from license infringement.
Regards,
On 2002-07-18 10:33:15 +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> The current status quo:
>
>a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
> that runs the system (life system). This ISO only contains
> binary packages, no source. This CD is sold and distributed
>
On Jul 18, Martin Schulze wrote:
> The current status quo:
>
>a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
> that runs the system (life system). This ISO only contains
> binary packages, no source. This CD is sold and distributed
> freely through the
Hi,
a discussion arose recently and I'd like to discuss the outcome and
the way to go.
The current status quo:
a) Company A collects .deb files from Debian and builds an ISO file
that runs the system (life system). This ISO only contains
binary packages, no source. This CD is so
91 matches
Mail list logo
