Branden said:
So, might not the DFCL say something like:
BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD
PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE
MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDER(S). ANY STATEMENT
On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 23:23, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Instead I think the guy who adds section B gains a copyright on all
> parts of the work that original to him. Maybe this is just section B,
> maybe it's some interstitial material as well.
ยง 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and
On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 11:06:10AM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
> IANAL, so I am not entirely sure, but...
>
> In step 2, the guy who adds section B gains a copyright on the
> _entire_ text, independently of its original copyright, not just
> on section B.
I don't believe this is true
Hi
On Friday 14 June 2002 04:39, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:36:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 05:58 , Branden Robinson
wrote:
> > > If you
> > >incorporate that work into a GPLed one, the endorsement
> > > terms would be "masked
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Jun 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
>Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> True enough, but what if they were legally binding electronic signatures?
>> Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be and
>> watch them
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 07:47:56PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > If evil.c is under the GPL, then it can be modified for any purpose
> > (including disabling its functionality).
>
> For most purposes, yes, but not for *any* purpose. See section
> 2(c) of the GPL for details:
>
> c) If the modi
Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> True enough, but what if they were legally binding electronic signatures?
> Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be and
> watch them go to jail PDQ
No, the point about electronic signatures is that the only one who
*can*
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If evil.c is under the GPL, then it can be modified for any purpose
> (including disabling its functionality).
For most purposes, yes, but not for *any* purpose. See section
2(c) of the GPL for details:
c) If the modified program normally reads com
On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 20:08, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> It'd be a bit more complicated. Say you have some dvd reading code
> whose license says that so long as it's used in conjunction with the
> functions in evil.c (which is GPL'd) the resultant work can be
> distributed under the GPL. But if you r
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> I had a hypothetical all ready that would show how someone could use
>> the sort of tunneling you were talking about to tie malicious code
>> (e.g., spyware, or copy-right checking cod
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> I had a hypothetical all ready that would show how someone could use
> the sort of tunneling you were talking about to tie malicious code
> (e.g., spyware, or copy-right checking code) to something else and
> claim the result was GPL
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, might not the DFCL say something like:
>
> BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD
> PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE
> MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 05:51:23PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>> Wouldn't the endorsements issue be best resolved by licensing the
>> endorsements separately from the rest of the document?
>
>Names are n
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 05:51:23PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Wouldn't the endorsements issue be best resolved by licensing the
> endorsements separately from the rest of the document?
Names are not subject to copyright protection, and not everyone has the
money or inclination to trademark his
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:19:22PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:22PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> > > > would permit the omission of the endor
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:22PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> > > would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
> >
> > If I can convert it to the GPL, then I don't c
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:08:10AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Would people add these to the copyright notice, like they add
> exceptions to link with OpenSSL today? If so, I guess those
> could always be trimmed, too.
The names of endorsers would be listed in the copyright notice, yes.
On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 01:05 , Branden Robinson wrote:
Here are my current thoughts on Endorsements:
Well, this'll teach me to read all my mail before responding...
I think I misunderstood the top of your last post.
3) [...] Endorsers may wish to communicate to the world (via a
Web
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:36:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 05:58 , Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > If you
> >incorporate that work into a GPLed one, the endorsement terms would be
> >"masked off", but would re-assert themselves once the
> >independently-c
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 07:58:45PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Er, but what prevents you from taking a DFCL-licensed work, converting
> it to the GPL and leaving it in a data file? I don't see how you can
> allow conversion to the GPL, without letting people do anything with it
> the GPL allows
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:55:51PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 03:22 , Mark Rafn wrote:
> >Actually, I guess I should be disallowed from adding anyone to the
> >endorsement list without their permission. Can the license prevent me
> >from adding a name to the
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:22PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> > would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
>
> If I can convert it to the GPL, then I don't care what the license
> says. Heck, I wouldn't mind th
On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 03:22 , Mark Rafn wrote:
Also, is there a more general term to use than "endorsements"?
I've been
known to write things I don't actually endorse, but still want my
authorship known. I'd prefer "attributions" or "contributors".
The copyright notice can do tha
On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 05:58 , Branden Robinson wrote:
If you
incorporate that work into a GPLed one, the endorsement terms would be
"masked off", but would re-assert themselves once the
independently-copyrighted were were extracted from its GPLed container.
1) Take a document A unde
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 02:41:02PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Calling this a part of the copyright notice doesn't make it so. That
> makes it GPL incompatible, because you have to preserve more than what
> the GPL requires.
You're forgetting that the endorsement notice would become optional if
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 04:58:40PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
>
> Actually, it would only "suspend" it. The idea being that you can't
> take a DFCL-licensed work, cra
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Calling this a part of the copyright notice doesn't make it so.
>
> Why not? It's certainly relevant to the copyright to note the existence
> of endorsements, especially if the copyright license menti
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> > > copyright notice, which mentions endorsements. Removing that
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> > copyright notice, which mentions endorsements. Removing that text
> > will not be permitted, unfortunately (yes,
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think you're confusing the statement about the endorsements with the
> > endorsements themselves.
>
> I wrote it that way because I wanted it to be a "copyright notice and
> disclaimer of warranty", n
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you're confusing the statement about the endorsements with the
> endorsements themselves.
I wrote it that way because I wanted it to be a "copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty", not an endorsement per se.
> The statement about the endorseme
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 15:54, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 14:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > You realize, of course, that this will make DFCL stuff unusable with
> > > GPL'd code. Do you really want to do that?
> >
> > If the endorsements
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 14:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> > > copyright notice, which mentions endorsements. Removing that text
> > > will n
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 14:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> > copyright notice, which mentions endorsements. Removing that text
> > will not be permitted, unfortunately (yes, this is invar
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> copyright notice, which mentions endorsements. Removing that text
> will not be permitted, unfortunately (yes, this is invariant text).
You realize, of course, that this will make D
0) Is this section intended to be free-form text that can contain
anything, or specifically a list of names and contact information? Can we
somehow disallow a 200-page useful endorsement with a 10-line useless
body? Or should this simply be judgement that we apply on a per-package
basis?
Also, i
36 matches
Mail list logo
