On 8/6/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:15:22AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > It's controversial to say that RMS is occasionally reported to behave
> > eccentrically? And that being a conference speaker doesn't
> > necessarily stop him?
>
> No. But
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, the code of conduct says that the canonical way to ask to be Cc:ed
> on replies is setting an appropriate Mail-Followup-To: field.
> Asking the same in the message body (in natural language) is a useful
> reminder for users of MUAs that do not auto
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:15:22AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/4/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > If a public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather
> > > sizable donations to his pr
On 8/4/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > If a public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather
> > sizable donations to his preferred charity in return for his speaking
> > engagements, then perhaps con
Apologies to all innocent bystanders for what has degenerated into an
offtopic flamefest. Unfortunately MKE has made some statements directed
at myself that I feel I cannot leave unanswered.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/3/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PRO
On 8/4/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a _little_ more abstract than real property ownership, which is a
> lot more abstract than possession of a chattel; but it's rather less
> abstract than, say, ownership of a 401(k) account -- a device where
> you have limited control o
On 8/4/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nevertheless, intellectual property is fundamentally different from
> real property, and the differences, in the general case, make it
> impossible to determine the boundaries of intellectual property.
It's a _little_ more abstract than real prop
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If we can't even manage this issue in the context of a single
> > paragraph, what hope do we have of codifying protection
> > for newly thought up instances of this issue, in law?
>
> That would be the reason that the integrity and compe
* Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050804 04:24]:
> > And I judge your evidence poorly researched. This does not enhance your
> > credibility when you expound at length (and length and length) on legal
> > affairs.
That was a good one.
> It's really interesting that people who show no evi
I wrote:
> RMS may sincerely
> believe that the GPL is a successful hack around contract law and the
> limits courts have imposed on other software copyright holders; but I
> don't see how a court could possibly agree with him.
Not to be paranoid or anything, but a reminder-disclaimer: The
I wrote:
> They're a sidetrack to be sure; but kind of an interesting sidetrack.
> His personal history and philosophy strike me as more reminiscent of
> Dominic de Guzman or Benedict of Nursia than any modern figure. In
> any case, I certainly intended no slur on RMS by that, nor on any
> partici
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's probably a lesson in here somewhere.
>
> "information" is also a term used to describe how people
> communicate.
Indeed, among other things; and it is a term sufficiently broad and
vague as to have very little utility in law.
> You try
On 8/3/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would again be news to me. I've just given two talks at LinuxTag
> (the biggest Linux-related event in Europe) and all I got was two nights
> in a hotel room. That's what all the speakers get, some do get part of
> or all of their travel
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/3/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't
> > exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe
> > communication between people -- that it
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I consider it a "grievous error" to claim that RMS "preach[es] the
> economic superiority of the free software system". You were not calling
> for an inquiry of any kind in that statement; you were simply snarking.
> And you were called out for
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 01:40:42PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That RMS gets paid for all the speeches he gives would indeed be news.
> > I have first-hand knowledge that he follows invitations to speak about
> > free software when prov
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't
> exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe
> communication between people -- that it's impossible to codify
> property rights protecting them. There
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 15:21 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> No, I just explained where I was coming from in characterizing RMS's
> public posture as "preach[ing] the economic superiority of the free
> software system". How you can call this an attempt to shut down the
> debate is beyond me. If
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:52 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded, the
> FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian should
> re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
If you can prove that the FS
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, there's a perfectly good argument that for
> > Debian to piss off the FSF is not a good idea whether or not they have
> > a legal leg to stand on. I personally would be ashamed to lend my
> > good name to their conduct in recent
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've got a fair point, in that RMS doesn't see his arguments as
> preaching economic superiority; and certainly many commentators have
> contrasted RMS's "ethical" perspective with, say, ESR's "economic"
> perspective. I don't entirely a
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I may not be much in the legal department, but you are now commenting on
> a field I am trained in. Suffice it to say that you have not thought
> seriously about the implications of your conflation of ethics and
> economics--or that if you have,
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It could be the case that everyone who disagrees with you whom you think
> should know better has ulterior motives. However, I think you need to
> consider the possibility that you simply do not understand the subject
> matter as well as you thi
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 13:11 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you
> > fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what
> > your references to all kinds of p
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me
> > both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less
> > reflect an accurate perspective on the surroundin
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale.
>
> It is. And, from my perspective, it completely destroys your
> credibility.
What makes your opinion more credible than
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale. He has been
> admitted to the bar in New York and before the Supreme Court. He has
> clerked in district court and for Justice Thurgood Marshall. He has
> held a professorship of
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:44 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> How many participants in the KDE/Qt brouhaha actually cited relevant
> case law?
I recall that quite a bit of case law was discussed. Perhaps the
debian-legal archives could tell you more.
> In any case, there's a perfectly good ar
On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you
> fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what
> your references to all kinds of precedents and such are worth.
You've got a fair point, in that RMS d
On 8/3/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded,
> the FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian
> should re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
Why?
Personally, I've quoted th
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me
> both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less
> reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and economics.
> Misrepresentations and charlatanry
** Raul ::
> On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
> > got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
> > is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
> > cash
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > So yes, inquiring minds want to know.
>
> And this inquiring mind is now satisfied as to what probably pays
> RMS's rent lately -- the ~$268K Takeda Award he received in 2001.
> (You couldn't keep a family in Cambridge for fou
I wrote:
> So yes, inquiring minds want to know.
And this inquiring mind is now satisfied as to what probably pays
RMS's rent lately -- the ~$268K Takeda Award he received in 2001.
(You couldn't keep a family in Cambridge for four years on that, but
RMS doesn't have that problem.) Me, I'd be kin
On 8/2/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
> > got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
> > is notoriously unforthcoming about thei
I wrote:
> There's a lot of money to be made in this
> area (although it's a pretty hard life if you have close friends and
> like your home); and if RMS had a way of laundering the money ("don't
> give it to me; but donate to the FSF if you like") so as to appear
> saintly, he wouldn't be th
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
> got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
> is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
> cash flows involved are no
On 8/2/05, Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That RMS gets paid for all the speeches he gives would indeed be news.
> I have first-hand knowledge that he follows invitations to speak about
> free software when provided free travel and lodging.
Do you know the numbers? As I wrote, I don't
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:04:34PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
> Although I have no personal knowledge on the financial side, it
> certainly looks to me like it has made them both rich men. Little
> snippets in the public record -- Jim Blandy's comment at
> http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.ht
On 7/31/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe a license that fits Michael's needs, but definitely *not* a
> DFSG-free one: unfortunately, at the moment, there are no CC licenses
> that comply with the DFSG...
I do not, at present, need a license at all; I am perfectly content
with
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:11:15 +0200 Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 11:30:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > On 7/30/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well, let's say "Almost All Rights Reserved".
> > > Anyway, it's still really far away from a DFSG-free docu
On 7/30/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/30/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I count four issues the judge considered, with a bit of detail on each
> > of those issues.
>
> I didn't say six "issues". I said "six reasons why it would be
> inappropriate to gran
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 11:30:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/30/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, let's say "Almost All Rights Reserved".
> > Anyway, it's still really far away from a DFSG-free document: that's
> > basically what I meant...
>
> Oddly enough, the
I wrote:
> The contributory / direct infringement difference is kind of
> interesting from a tactical point of view ...
followed by some discussion about the Micro Star opinion that was more
inarticulate than usual.
The point I was trying to make, in sentences of 25 words or less: The
important p
On 7/30/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By this reasoning, if linking is normally a breach of rights, I could give you
> some BSD licensed software and do exactly the same thing. I am estopped from
> suing you for linking with my BSD software, but I can still prevent other
> people f
On 7/30/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, let's say "Almost All Rights Reserved".
> Anyway, it's still really far away from a DFSG-free document: that's
> basically what I meant...
Oddly enough, there is some useful knowledge out there that is not
currently available in a DFSG-
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:07:00 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/29/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In other words, "All Rights Reserved"... :-(
>
> I did say that I would be happy to give you advance permission to
> circulate a reasonable number of copies privately, which w
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:07:00 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/29/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > P.S.: please do not reply to me directly, while Cc:ing the list, as
> > I didn't ask you to do so... since I'm a debian-legal subscriber,
> > I'd rather not receive messag
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > If the GPL lets the user do it, it isn't infringement at all. You can't
> > have contributory infringement if there's no infringement.
> The GPL is not a new copyright statute with the power to override the
> meaning of infringement, nor do its dr
On 7/30/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I count four issues the judge considered, with a bit of detail on each
> of those issues.
I didn't say six "issues". I said "six reasons why it would be
inappropriate to grant a preliminary injunction for breach of the GPL
terms, any one of whi
On 7/28/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/28/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the "stop
> > distribution" penalty was not used in part because Progress
> > didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed
> >
On 7/28/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/28/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think that the point is that people would be going to jail for
> > violating the GPL.
>
> "Violating the GPL" doesn't mean anything.
Yes it does -- it means actions in the
On 7/28/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only good answer people in d-l gave me to the question:
> "why is the assumption that such linking is a violation of the
> GPL valid?" is "because Eben Moglen said so in the GPL
> FAQ, and he is a law teacher, so it must be tr
> > GPL violators appear to face several potential penalties:
>
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Potential penalties are irrelevant to my question. You assume a
> priori that such linking is a violation of the GPL. My question was
> why that assumption is valid. As I expl
On 7/28/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strawman?
>
> Fact: the creation of a derivative work is the application of some
> transformation
> on the original work.
>
> The above snippet (which isn't even copyrightable, for its sheer size and the
> necessity of expressin
On 7/29/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, "All Rights Reserved"... :-(
I did say that I would be happy to give you advance permission to
circulate a reasonable number of copies privately, which would leave
me with no recourse against you unless you set out to misappr
On 7/29/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While that's true, the right of users to link the software in private isn't
> a personal-use safe harbor--it's explicitly allowed by the GPL.
>
> If the GPL lets the user do it, it isn't infringement at all. You can't
> have contributory infri
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:06:58 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/28/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What do you mean "freely available"?
> > Should I request a copy, which license would you send it under?
>
> None whatsoever. :-) Just like sending you a paper copy in the ma
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > But that doesn't apply in the case of automatic systems for users to do the
> > link. The GPL allows users to do what they want privately, so the users
> > aren't performing infringing acts themselves.
> While Andrew's parallel to Grokster is IMHO
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:04:40AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
> >> Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
> >> automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated fr
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 09:19:15AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Anyway, the person who "recombines" the "film" and "track", in the
> > > case of dynamic linking, is the *USER*, in the process of using the
> > > program, and copyrights protection do
On 7/28/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean "freely available"?
> Should I request a copy, which license would you send it under?
None whatsoever. :-) Just like sending you a paper copy in the mail,
with no obligation of confidentiality as such; the copy is yours, fe
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:04:34 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Excuse me for asking, but why is this monograph not freely
> > available? Surely, as a non-lawyer, you have no hope of profiting
> > from it, and having a succint, linkable statem
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the "stop
> distribution" penalty was not used in part because Progress
> didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed
> by this penalty. And, Progress had agreed in court to release
> th
On 7/28/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You Are Wrong. Under US law, this is Contributory Infringement, which
> > carries a full array of jail terms. SCOTUS just upheld it against
> > Grokster a few weeks ago. Providing an automated syst
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that the point is that people would be going to jail for
> violating the GPL.
"Violating the GPL" doesn't mean anything. The GPL is not a statute.
It's just an offer of contract. The only way to "enforce" it is for a
party with
** Michael Poole ::
> Potential penalties are irrelevant to my question. You assume a
> priori that such linking is a violation of the GPL. My question was
> why that assumption is valid. As I explained above, his citation of
> case law does not fit the facts.
The only good answer people in d-
Raul Miller writes:
> On 7/28/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What statute or case law supports this position? Comparison to
>> Grokster et al doesn't hold, for reasons that should have been
>> obvious: The GPL explicitly allows a user to use and modify code in
>> any way the user
** Raul Miller ::
> On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
> > automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
> >
> > #include
> > int main(int argc, char** argv) {
> > pri
On 7/27/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether or not that agreement purports to bind a developer in ways
> that copyright law does not, there are limits to what terms a court
> will permit in a contract of adhesion.
Agreed.
Then again, the penalties I'd expect the court to
On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
> automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
>
> #include
> int main(int argc, char** argv) {
> printf("Hello\n");
> return 0;
>
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What statute or case law supports this position? Comparison to
> Grokster et al doesn't hold, for reasons that should have been
> obvious: The GPL explicitly allows a user to use and modify code in
> any way the user sees appropriate; section
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Anyway, the person who "recombines" the "film" and "track", in the
> > case of dynamic linking, is the *USER*, in the process of using the
> > program, and copyrights protection do not apply at that moment, as
> > per 17USC.
> You Are Wrong. Under US
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
>> Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
>> automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
>>
>> #include
>> int main(int argc, char** argv) {
>>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
> Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
> automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
>
> #include
> int main(int argc, char** argv) {
> printf("Hello\n");
> retu
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excuse me for asking, but why is this monograph not freely available?
> Surely, as a non-lawyer, you have no hope of profiting from it, and
> having a succint, linkable statement of your arguments would do wonders
> for preventing such go-around
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does such compilation in itself give Debian any rights on its own, or is
> the compilation seen as non-copyrightable?
The collective work (special case of compilation) that is a Debian CD
is copyrightable. The copyright covers the creative exp
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 12:00 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The message to which I pointed you has a link back into the main fray
> (threads with titles like "Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev
> replacement", "GPL and linking", and "What makes software
> copyrightable anyway?"). I've pu
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:42 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> ** Jeff Licquia ::
>
> > On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > > First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
> > > OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work
>
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
> > OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work has a
> > definition in the statute (in the US
** Jeff Licquia ::
> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
> > OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work
> > has a definition in the statute (in the US case, 17USC).
>
> Hmm. I suppo
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
> OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work has a
> definition in the statute (in the US case, 17USC).
Hmm. I suppose this is part and parcel of th
** Jeff Licquia ::
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
> > distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a
> > work that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the
> > things are (
I wrote:
> ... only those few d-l participants with actual legal credentials seem to
> agree with me ...
Er, that overreaches a bit in both directions; sorry. I'm more
strident on the topic than the people with credentials are, and there
are certainly other d-l regulars who question the FSF FAQ'
On 7/26/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> A compilation or collective work under US law is not necessarily a
> derivative work of any of its components. The GPL's use of
> "derivative" and "derived" is fuzzy in this sense, which is one reason
> the terms from copyright law are
Jeff Licquia writes:
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
>> I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
>> distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a work
>> that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the things are
>> (dy
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
> distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a work
> that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the things are
> (dynamically) linked at run tim
** Loïc Minier ::
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > >From the GPL: Activities other than copying, distribution and
> modification are not
> > > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
> > > of running the Program is not restricted...
> > So the
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >From the GPL:
> > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> > running the Program is not restricted...
> So the particular details of how thing
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:17:25AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 11:59 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > GStreamer's build process builds separate binaries for the various
> > plugins, these are then dlopened when requested.
> >
> > I would personnally think that installing onl
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 11:59 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> GStreamer's build process builds separate binaries for the various
> plugins, these are then dlopened when requested.
>
> I would personnally think that installing only Debian's GStreamer
> packages that are linked to LGPL libraries doesn
Hi,
I agree with most of what you said, except I'd like clarification on
this part:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The copyright of the rest of GStreamer depends on how it's distributed.
> In Debian, it's clear that GStreamer is distributed with MAD support,
> which makes i
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 20:50 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> The GStreamer suite ships a lot of plugins which are dlopened() when
> needed. Some of them link with GPL libraries.
>
> I received a bug report (#317129) to change the copyright files of
> libgstreamer0.8-0 and gstreamer0.8-mad to GPL.
93 matches
Mail list logo
