On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:32:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> That would bring me to the conclusion that I must accept the GPL in
> order to make a copy of a GPL'd work.
>
> See for example GPL#4:
>
> [ 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> [ except as express
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:45:59 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
> >
> > > the reason you can copy a file
> > > which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
> > >
On 2004-06-07 12:53:37 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He is not the only person who thinks the license is ambiguous.
Sure, but the stated reasons about assuming copyright seem to be
either misreading the licence or misunderstanding copyright.
Nor is
he the only person who t
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-06-07 01:43:08 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I see a license with a clause that both I and Henning [1] found
> > potentially
> > questionable, so I brought it to the attention of the rest of the
> > list.
>
> Searching the list
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 15:50 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
No, it's not. KTH's Kerberos 5 is called Heimdal and is in the source
package with that name. The Kerberos 4 in Debian is from KTH, however.
--
Pelle
On 2004-06-07 00:44:25 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] Although an interpretation of the clause with respect to US
copyright law says that the clause should only mean "we keep our
copyrights"
(which is a NOP),
An interpretation of the clause with respect to most forms o
On 2004-06-07 01:43:08 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see a license with a clause that both I and Henning [1] found
potentially
questionable, so I brought it to the attention of the rest of the
list.
Searching the list archive by that message-id brings no results, you
know?
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 01:32:44AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >You snapped at me for not being willing to do the footwork, despite
> >being willing to bring up a possible issue--which seemed to be saying
> >[crap]
>
> As far as I know, I have not spoken to you to "snap". If you infer
> that from my
On 2004-06-06 19:19:07 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You snapped at me for not being willing to do the footwork, despite
being willing to bring up a possible issue--which seemed to be saying
[crap]
As far as I know, I have not spoken to you to "snap". If you infer
that from
On 2004-06-06 23:37:16 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No reason. But that isn't necessarily what the clause in question
says. It
is ambiguous; it could be interpreted in one of several ways. One of
which
is OK, and another which is very not-OK.
I do not agree that "OpenVi
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 07:12:54PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:37:16AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > We have a licence
> > which (AFAIK) we've never seen before, with an ambiguous clause, and some of
> > us would like to take the diligent path and disambiguate it.
>
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:37:16AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> We've had cases previously where a licensor has interpreted a licence in
> common use as a DFSG-free licence in a non-free manner; can you give any
> solid reason why that could not be an issue in this case?
That can *always* be the
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 04:52:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >software, and I think it's the burden of people who actually care
> >about
> >the software to do the legwork to ensure that it's free.
>
> Sure, but I can't see why they shouldn't assert their (non-exclusive)
> copyright interest in deri
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 04:52:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-05 00:23:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem. Sorry, but I'm
> >not willing to ignore the DFSG so long as I don't use a particular
> >piece of
>
> No-one
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> > the reason you can copy a file
> > which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
> > because you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.
>
> I d
On 2004-06-05 00:23:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem. Sorry, but I'm
not willing to ignore the DFSG so long as I don't use a particular
piece of
No-one is ignoring the DFSG, so I don't know why you mentioned that.
softwa
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:46:51 +0200 Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040602 16:42]:
> > If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by
> > the GPL's terms.[...]
>
> If you log on some computer and make a copy there and transmit it to
> you (like ssh
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
> the reason you can copy a file
> which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
> because you are explicitly granted that right by the GPL.
I don't think so: you are not granted any right by a license, unless you
accept t
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I'll have to retract my assertation that one has to accept the GPL
> before downloading a work covered by it. In most jurisdictions that I
> know of, people by default have the right to create copies of most
> copyrighted works for
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:59:14PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing
> to do this work?
This has nothing to do with "making me happy". I only raised the issue;
it's up to the list to determine if there's a problem. Sorry, but I'm
not w
On 2004-06-04 22:36:57 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In this case, we're probably best off asking for a clarification from
the
author. (I don't even use Kerberos, so I'm not up to doing that.)
This needless work must be done to make you happy; you are not willing
to do this
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >I'm not saying the originating region matters;
>
> It does somewhat when trying to figure out what a clause is intended to
> mean. If we saw something like that in a US-based licensor's license,
> we can be pretty sure it i
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright
> assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO,
> sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the
> cop
On Jun 4, 2004, at 15:55, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
everyone lives in the US.
You're right, this is isn't the M
On Jun 3, 2004, at 20:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter
where you consider the copy to be "made", *I* am the one who is
causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that
particular time and place.
So then the ser
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> >Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
> >everyone lives in the US.
>
> You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
I'm no
On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
everyone lives in the US.
You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If I make photocopies of a book and put them on a shelf with a "Free!"
> sign, and you then take a copy, I'm the one who made the copy available,
> and the one needing permission from the copyright holder.
The thing that needs permission is not making
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040602 16:42]:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
> GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some
> computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
> computers, legally speaking, do
> Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Except, the copy is being made on the server.
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:27:00AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> When I download something, the copy is being made on a hard disk that
> sits in a box below my desk. Current is being modulated and passed
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:27:00AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> But that is actually irrelevant. The relevant part is that no matter
> where you consider the copy to be "made", *I* am the one who is
> causing the computers (my own and the server) to make a copy at that
> particular time and plac
Henning Makholm wrote:
When I download something, the copy is being made on a hard disk that
sits in a box below my desk. Current is being modulated and passed
through a coil, which causes an area of the disk surface to be made
into a copy of the work.
But that is actually irrelevant. The releva
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
> > GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some
> > computer to make create a copy of the Work
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:09:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> It can't be a copyright assignment, because I have not signed it...
>
> Title 17, Sec. 204(a)
> A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation
> of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance,
>
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Do you mean to claim copyright on other people's work based on yours, or
> just to retain your copyright on the portions of your work which they used?
> The wording is unclear to us, sorry."
But those are the same thing. Copyright attaches to the
On May 31, 2004, at 20:42, Matthew Palmer wrote:
OpenVision retains all copyrights in the donated Source Code.
OpenVision
also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code,
whether
created by OpenVision or by a third party. The OpenVision copyright
notice must be prese
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If they really meant to "steal" the work, then the whole license may
>> be invalid. In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
>> all. So I think a clarification is definitely in order.
>
>
On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If they really meant to "steal" the work, then the whole license may
be invalid. In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
all. So I think a clarification is definitely in order.
Why? What form should such a
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-06-03 00:20:48 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it simply means that they retain copyright in their portions,
> > not
> > that they're stealing your derivative works. That would require a
> > statement from the copyrig
On 2004-06-03 00:20:48 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Perhaps it simply means that they retain copyright in their portions,
not
that they're stealing your derivative works. That would require a
statement from the copyright holder before I'd belive it, though.
As you note,
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source
>Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party.
This sounds completely unacceptable, if it means what it says. It's also
probably invalid in the US. Copyright assignments must be signed an
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:27:28 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> It seems to me that the person who puts something on line is usually
> regarded as the person doing the copying.
That is indeed what I have thought till a few days ago... And it's still
the most reasonable interpretation I can think
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
> > (and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
>
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd
On 02 Jun 2004 12:52:37 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
> GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some
> computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive.
Thus a downloaded package (e.g. from Deb
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
> GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructing some
> computer to make create a copy of the Work on your hard drive. Because
> computers, legally speaking, do not *do* anythi
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
> > (and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
> (and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it by the
GPL's terms. "Downloading" implies that you are instructi
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:35:09 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I guess, though, in a way
> it's another wording of the GPL's "you can't legally get a copy except
> by the permissions we've granted here, so we'll take it as read you
> accept this licence" clause.
Wait, wait!
I'm not sure I understand w
On 2004-06-01 11:35:09 +0100 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're saying that because it doesn't say "retains _exclusive_
copyright",
it doesn't preclude others from claiming copyright over other (non
OpenVision) portions of the work? [...]
Not exactly (else I would have written t
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:27:05AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >"OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source
> >Code,
> >whether created by OpenVision or by a third party" seems like it
> >tries to
> >claim copyright in parts of derived works that they didn't create.
>
> This
On 2004-05-31 21:15:35 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The second paragraph is very questionable, even if the terms being
"agreed
to" are free.
If the only way you can obtain it is by making a copy yourself, it is
a little hostile but applicable, I guess. Surely it's not part
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 04:15:35PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>WARNING: Retrieving the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system
>source code, as described below, indicates your acceptance of the
>following terms. If you do not agree to the following terms, do not
>retrieve the Op
52 matches
Mail list logo
