On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 01:51:13PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> [stuff deleted]
>
> And, as for Brian's comment, I would note that U.S. copyrights are expiring
> everyday. That said, I see his concern and agree there has to be some limit
> on copyright term extensions (in the U.S. and worldwide)
bject: Copyright, Patent Expirations [Was: Re: GNU License and Computer
Break Ins]
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 16:03:10 -0400
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:08:59PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> Some copyrights never expire. For example, my understanding is that the
> UK "crown copyright" (
Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But this is not what GPL is about . . . apparently. Apparently, even if
> the original author wants his or her work used in a certain non-GPL-ed
> way, it doesn't matter. The moral thing to do is to disregard the
> wishes of the author and to copy it any
Thus spake Steve Greenland on Sun, May 21, 2000 at 11:55:48AM CDT
> On 21-May-00, 01:51 (CDT), Lindsay Haisley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are several levels of 'ownership' here. What are called 'mechanical'
> > rights - the rights to the actual recorded sound are different from the
> >
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:08:59PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> Some copyrights never expire. For example, my understanding is that the
> UK "crown copyright" (a copyright owned by the government) is perpetual.
> The US follows almost exactly the opposite rule, where works by or for the
> governme
Raul Miller wrote:
> First, you really ought to learn to think clearly.
>
> You've assigned the wrong purpose to the GPL.
We have different views on this. I don't think this necessarily makes
me wrong. It all depends on how the future plays out.
Frankly, I hope you're right; I hope I am wrong.
On 21-May-00, 01:51 (CDT), Lindsay Haisley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are several levels of 'ownership' here. What are called 'mechanical'
> rights - the rights to the actual recorded sound are different from the
> rights to the arrangement, lyrics and music. I can see where record
> com
Thus spake Brian Ristuccia on Sun, May 21, 2000 at 01:12:06AM CDT
> On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:36:47PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> > Seth David Schoen writes:
> >
> > > accreted on top of the copyright system, so that authors have become
> > > quite insistent about their absolute "ownership"
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:36:47PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Seth David Schoen writes:
>
> > accreted on top of the copyright system, so that authors have become
> > quite insistent about their absolute "ownership" of their work, and
>
> I should probably say that agents and publishers ha
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:15:45PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> At the risk of seeming to pick nits, this is not actually the effect
> of the GPL. The author of a GPL work can license it to different
> parties on different terms; only authors of derivative works are so
> encumbered.
That's not so mu
At the risk of seeming to pick nits, this is not actually the effect of
the GPL. The author of a GPL work can license it to different parties on
different terms; only authors of derivative works are so encumbered. The
author of a GPL work could even sell it, or add conditions of sale, such
as all
Some copyrights never expire. For example, my understanding is that the
UK "crown copyright" (a copyright owned by the government) is perpetual.
The US follows almost exactly the opposite rule, where works by or for the
government are in the public domain.
Please do not confuse copyright and pa
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I'm working on the argument that copyrights are so confusing because
> > they are really an attempt at a government subsidy to authors (to
> > promote the Progress, etc.), cleverly disguised as a minor market
> > regul
Scripsit Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm working on the argument that copyrights are so confusing because
> they are really an attempt at a government subsidy to authors (to
> promote the Progress, etc.), cleverly disguised as a minor market
> regulation.
Hum? I've always thought that
Seth David Schoen writes:
> accreted on top of the copyright system, so that authors have become
> quite insistent about their absolute "ownership" of their work, and
I should probably say that agents and publishers have become quite
insistent about their absolute ownership of the authors' work.
Paul Serice writes:
> Mark Rafn wrote:
> >
> > Some authors' wishes are dishonorable (in some opinions).
>
> That's a good point. I'm not sympathetic when they try to abuse the
> system.
>
> > > If pressed, I will break. At some point, technology should fall
> > > into the public domain or a
I agree with you and think this is an honorable things to do when the
author wishes it. I cannot agree that disrespecting an author's wishes
is the way to respect the author's program.
There's a certain level of respect that everyone deserves, but some
people have grandiose ideas of t
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 03:27:34PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> I'm trying to understand this GPL thing to see if I can stay a Debian
> developer in good conscience.
...
> Then I wake up one day to learn that GPL isn't what I thought it
> was. Well, its social reach extended further than I thought i
Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> Some authors' wishes are dishonorable (in some opinions).
That's a good point. I'm not sympathetic when they try to abuse the
system.
> > If pressed, I will break. At some point, technology should fall
> > into the public domain or a GPL-like public domain even against an
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
>> Let me understand this... You are a Debian developer?
>> And you have openly hostile feelings for the GPL, as evidenced by
>> this thread.
You're doing it to. RMS's feelings on software freedom can be disagreed
with and even oppo
On 19-May-00, 15:27 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then I wake up one day to learn that GPL isn't what I thought it was.
> Well, its social reach extended further than I thought it did. It seems
> to be about making sure that the community immediately has access to the
> source c
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 04:36:06PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> This is the underlying issue in the dispute between the "Free Software"
> camp (Stallman) and the "Open Source" camp (Perens, Raymond).
I'm not sure Bruce Perens still has both feet in the Open Source camp. He
wrote an article some tim
Not only do I not recall saying that the full social consequences of the
GPL are obvious, I would not claim to know what they are. Many widely
respected people have expressed essentially opposite opinions on that.
This is the underlying issue in the dispute between the "Free Software"
camp (Stal
Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> Let me understand this... You are a Debian developer?
>
> And you have openly hostile feelings for the GPL, as evidenced by
> this thread. Your above sentiments show you openly hostile to free
> software in general. If you have these opinions, why the hell did
> you be
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > The GPL is about establishing and defending the freedom to share and
> > change published software--about respecting community and
> > cooperation. The way to respect a program, whoever has worked on it
> > so far, is to share
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:28:45AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Let me understand this... You are a Debian developer?
>
> And you have openly hostile feelings for the GPL,
[...]
> Seems like the new maintainer fonecall wasn't very effective.
I don't think sanguine emotions about the GPL need be
Mike Bilow wrote:
>
> None of this makes a bit of difference. You are making a very obvious
> error by failing to realize that different authors may elect to put their
> works under GPL with different intent and different motivation. You are
> reading too much into the mental process behind the
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 09:41:10AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > Of course, if you don't think the FSF is trustworthy, don't use
> > "Version 2, or, at your option, any later version".
>
> You make my point for me. Authors currently have the right to choose
> how their work is used. It has come
Paul Serice writes:
> Do I read you and others correctly? Is the GPL a strategy designed to
> basically reduce the time to zero between when an author publishes and
> when the work falls into a GPL-like public domain? (Much like the use
> of proprietary operating systems was a strategy when the
Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> The GPL is about establishing and defending the freedom to share and
> change published software--about respecting community and
> cooperation. The way to respect a program, whoever has worked on it
> so far, is to share it, improve it, and leave it better than you
> f
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
> > Of course, if you don't think the FSF is trustworthy, don't use
> > "Version 2, or, at your option, any later version".
> You make my point for me. Authors currently have the right to choose
> how their work is used. It has come to my attention that the
Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> Raul Miller writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > > I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> > > the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
> > > only want their work t
> I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> the GPL was about respecting the work of other people.
The GPL is about establishing and defending the freedom to share and
change published software--about respecting community and cooperation.
The way to respect a
None of this makes a bit of difference. You are making a very obvious
error by failing to realize that different authors may elect to put their
works under GPL with different intent and different motivation. You are
reading too much into the mental process behind the author's action, while
what i
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> > the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
> > only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the licens
Raul Miller wrote:
> And, since your entire rant seems to be based on the idea that laws
> are being broken, I think it's up to you to come up with the
> details.
I agree. I will try e-mailing him. The message is at the bottom.
I sent it a few seconds ago.
Paul Serice
===
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> > Nobody thinks (but you) that the GPL grants to people the right to
> > break into a computer. If you feel betrayed, it's by a
> > misunderstanding; at worst, it's an ambiguous sentence which you read
> > incorrectly
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
> I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
> only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for them
> (or so I thought). If you want you
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
>
> Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, I guess it's a couple of things. First I feel betrayed. Given
> > all the comments I've received about Stallman's reasonably
> > well-publicized philosophy I suppose I have no one to blame but myself.
>
> Nob
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 09:54:39PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> You don't give me much time to reply.
Yes; disingenuous, calculated, misleading remarks do take longer to cook up
than the honest truth.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux |It tastes go
Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I guess it's a couple of things. First I feel betrayed. Given
> all the comments I've received about Stallman's reasonably
> well-publicized philosophy I suppose I have no one to blame but myself.
Nobody thinks (but you) that the GPL grants to peo
I should have read all the list before replying...
Paul Serice wrote:
> Paul Serice wrote:
> >
> > You don't give me much time to reply.
>
> I take that back. It just got lost in incoming.
It was more than a day, during which you posted to -devel.
Paul Serice wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
> > licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
> > nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
>
> You don't
Paul Serice wrote:
>
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
> > licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
> > nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
>
> You don't give me much time to reply.
I take that back. It just got
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
> licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
> nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
You don't give me much time to reply.
Paul Serice
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > This is not some random quote that I'm taking out of context. There is
> > a logical nexus here.
>
> Sure, but you're discussing an informal essay as if it were a legal
> document.
>
> Why?
Well, I guess it'
On 16-May-00, 01:18 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DDD is now apparently under the aegis of GNU. The quote I give comes
> straight from the GNU's mouth in a short section devoted to explaining
> the power they want the GPL to confer.
I recently defended Mr. Serice from a trollin
I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
Joey Hess wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > > This is not some random quo
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > This is not some random quote that I'm taking out of context. There is
> > a logical nexus here.
>
> Sure, but you're discussing an informal essay as if it were a legal
> document.
>
> Why?
Because, as near as
Paul Serice wrote:
> DDD is now apparently under the aegis of GNU.
So is a whole slew of software[1]. That doesn't mean RMS is personally
responsible for what it may say in some manual somewhere, nor does it
mean what it says in some manual somewhere has any bearing on the
interpretation of the GP
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> This is not some random quote that I'm taking out of context. There is
> a logical nexus here.
Sure, but you're discussing an informal essay as if it were a legal
document.
Why?
--
Raul
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Paul Serice wrote:
> > What is legally binding is neither the text I quoted nor the text to
> > which you refer. Rather, it is the interpretation of the text to which
> > you refer (and possibly other documents) by a judge of competent
> > jurisdiction (or a similar decision
Paul Serice wrote:
> What is legally binding is neither the text I quoted nor the text to
> which you refer. Rather, it is the interpretation of the text to which
> you refer (and possibly other documents) by a judge of competent
> jurisdiction (or a similar decision maker).
>
> To my knowledge,
On 15-May-00, 11:47 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:56:44AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > as Jutta pointed out
>
> Who?
You, of course. Sorry, I didn't go back and look while I was composing,
and just remembered the "Ju" and the two "tt"s
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:56:44AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> as Jutta pointed out
Who?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
I'm moving IRL on May 2, 2000.
New contact information on the home page
On 15-May-00, 05:11 (CDT), Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here.
>
> I think there's a troll here.
Huh? Mike's note was a very well-written explanation (much better than
my attempts) of why
Scripsit Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here.
I think there's a troll here.
--
Henning Makholm "You want to know where my brain is,
spetsnaz girl? Do you? Look behind you."
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. GPL is a set of
copyright license terms, and the subject of copyright is the right to
publish. The essence of GPL is that, if you publish, you must follow
certain conditions. There is nothing in GPL that requires you to publish.
If someone br
> He has been known to support the POV you're arguing against. See,
> for example, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, where he says,
> among other things:
>
> You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
> privately in your own work or play, without even mentio
> There's a ongoing discussion in the AskSlashdot section of Slashdot.org
> (http://www.slashdot.org/index.pl?section=askslashdot), under the
> article titled "What Happens When Open Source And Work Collide?", that
> shows (most) others seem to agree with my interpetation, for whatever
> that's wor
On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 02:22:34PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > If I'm required to distribute mods, that means I can't experiment
> > with code, because I don't have time to post every version that I
> > come up with.
>
> This seems perfectly reasonable to me, but I'm a reasonable person.
> Stalm
On 14-May-00, 14:22 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure it is the common understanding, because I've read that
> > interpetation in several places; It's not original with me.
>
> I believe you, and I hope your right . . . but
There's a ongoing discussion in the AskS
> I'm pretty sure it is the common understanding, because I've read that
> interpetation in several places; It's not original with me.
I believe you, and I hope your right . . . but
> If I'm required to distribute mods, that means I can't experiment
> with code, because I don't have time to post
On 14-May-00, 03:05 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Absolutely. The GPL rule is that *if* you want to distribute your
> > modifications, you must make the source available. If you only modify
> > for personal use, you are under no obligation to distribute.
>
> After the fact, I'
Scripsit Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Section 2 says, "You may modify . . . and copy and distribute . . ." It
> does not say "or." It says "and."
This is a common idiom in English (and several other natural
languages): when you have a number of sentences connected with
"and" (or "or") it i
> The entirety of http://www.gnu.org/manual/ddd/html_mono/ddd.html is
> _not_ the license of GDB.
>
> GDB's license is just the GPL, specifically, it is the section marked
> "Note: License" on that page.
>
> The text you quotes is not part of the license, and so it's not legally
> binding. It's ju
> Absolutely. The GPL rule is that *if* you want to distribute your
> modifications, you must make the source available. If you only modify
> for personal use, you are under no obligation to distribute.
After the fact, I'm reading the GPL again and don't find support for
your position. If yours i
On 14-May-00, 00:08 (CDT), Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. You get the right (not the duty) to let people get copies from
> > you.
>
> So, if I make modifications to the source, you're saying that I have
> the right to redistribute and no duty to do so?
>
Absolutely. The GPL rule
> No. You get the right (not the duty) to let people get copies from
> you.
So, if I make modifications to the source, you're saying that I have
the right to redistribute and no duty to do so?
> No, you are preventing *yourself* from sharing your copy with others.
> That is allowed.
At first, I
Paul Serice wrote:
> At http://www.gnu.org/manual/ddd/html_mono/ddd.html , the DDD license
> states as follows:
>
> The easiest way to get a copy of DDD is from someone else who
> has it. You need not ask for permission to do so, or tell any
> one else; just copy it.
The entire
Scripsit Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But what about people who aren't authorized to use my computer?
They are not authorized to use your computer. That has nothing to
do with copyright licenses.
> Apparently, by using DDD, I agree to let all people get copies of DDD
> without asking me fir
At http://www.gnu.org/manual/ddd/html_mono/ddd.html , the DDD license
states as follows:
The easiest way to get a copy of DDD is from someone else who
has it. You need not ask for permission to do so, or tell any
one else; just copy it.
So, I have DDD on my system. Apparently
72 matches
Mail list logo
