RPC code was relicensed to 3-clause BSD license.
The glib commit:
http://sources.redhat.com/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=a7ab6ec83e144dafdc7c46b8943288f450f8e320
From:
http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html
Quote:
"...
So, we restarted the effort with Oracle, and on August 18, 2010, Wim
Coekaer
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:35:12 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
>> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
>> >> > Since our u
On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 16:35 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Is it? Propreitary software can indeed provide value, and is
often useful to people -- which is why the company is in
business. And yet, we have coalesced a volunteer effort around the
premise that libre software
Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> >> > Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should
> >> > not try to solve one of thos
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
>> > Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should
>> > not try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the
>> > other, and *certainly* not
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:16:18 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]:
>> I think you are mixing up "archived copy of old releases" and
>> "releasing". Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some
>> weight; and there are larg
On 2003-09-08, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you asked the glibc team (the actual upstream) what they think?
> Or the FSF? I would start that way.
I sent a short note to the FSF on Sunday (as a private individual,
interested in Debian) setting out the situation and asking
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 23:35]:
> Of course not. We can put it off forever, and it looks like we may just
> do that. The people closest to the affected code are not interested in
> researching the issue, the Release Manager isn't interested in
> researching the issue, and R
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve.
> >
> > I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to
> > happen *now*.
>
> Of course not.
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:17:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If the code is not free, then we do have a problem to resolve.
>
> I'm not saying we don't. The question is whether it really needs to
> happen *now*.
Of course not. We can put it off forever, and it looks like we may just
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 08:16:18PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]:
> > I think you are mixing up "archived copy of old releases" and
> > "releasing". Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some
> > weight; and there are large num
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 18:05]:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release
> > name stable is, release name in []):
> > now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04
> > 1 sun[woo
Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> > Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should not
> > try to solve one of those problems *at the cost* of the other, and
> > *certainly* not if one is not willing to provide a solution.
>
> The DFSG is indeed in our us
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 20:05]:
> I think you are mixing up "archived copy of old releases" and
> "releasing". Releasing a copy of Debian is an act that carries some
> weight; and there are large numbers of people who wait for a release,
> and we have a reputation fo
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:10:10 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:31:19AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Yeah, because there is *no* difference whatsoever between:
>>
>> "We're sorry, upstream did not make clear to us the full licensing
>> terms of th
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:38:18 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> In other words, it is OK to ship non-free code in main, as long as
>> there is no free implementation.
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying whether or not this
> is free; and I'm certainly not saying it's
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:34:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> This would lead to the following code in stable (whichever release
> name stable is, release name in []):
> now Oct 03 Dez 03 Oct 04
> 1 sun[woody] sun[woody] sun[sarge] sun[sarge+1]
> 2 sun[woody] sun[
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030908 02:35]:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:03:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I would say that replacal of the Sun-code should be a release goal for
> > sarge+1, except if the matter could be clarified with Sun or someone
> > stands up right now to actu
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:52:39AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > > our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at
> > > > > least) not
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:03:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I would say that replacal of the Sun-code should be a release goal for
> sarge+1, except if the matter could be clarified with Sun or someone
> stands up right now to actually write the code.
Why? We can just put off fixing it then,
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at
> > > > least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after
> > > > secti
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:31:19AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Yeah, because there is *no* difference whatsoever between:
>
> "We're sorry, upstream did not make clear to us the full
>licensing terms of their software. Now that we have
>found out, we've fixed it as qui
On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 06:09 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck
up.
We can't ship without RPC
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at
> > > least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after
> > > section 2c of the GPL if you disagree).
> >
> > You've tried to make that arg
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 11:50]:
> However, if *you* are willing to write a
> replacement, and are willing to hold up the release for that, I will
> support you, but then you should make sure the code is at least as good
> as the RPC code which *is* in glibc right now. Not doin
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:45:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up.
> > We can't ship without RPC in glibc
>
> Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues th
0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> > Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not
> >> > the Sun RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold
> >> > up the release.
> >>
> >> When did we decide that release
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 00:50]:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up.
> > We can't ship without RPC in glibc
> Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues this severe.
W
n whether or not
>> > the Sun RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold
>> > up the release.
>>
>> When did we decide that release dates were more important than the
>> DFSG?
> We didn't. At least not officially. But to 's
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If you're not willing to do that, then I suggest you shut the fuck up.
> We can't ship without RPC in glibc
Equally, we shouldn't ship with known issues this severe.
> our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code i
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:39:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:10:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun
> > RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn&
t; > DFSG-freeness is a wise precedent to create.
> >
> > It doesn't appear to have been given; it appears to have been taken.
>
> Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun
> RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn'
rs to have been taken.
Please, guys. He isn't saying he has final say in whether or not the Sun
RPC code is DFSG-free; he's just saying it shouldn't hold up the
release.
If you think it should, then please, by all means, write a replacement
for the Sun RPC code, release it under the G
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 09:56:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:20:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > For the Release Manager: What standard do you set for the repudiation of
> > the aforementioned hearsay?
>
> Why is he setting it at all?
>
> I don't think that
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:20:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> For the Release Manager: What standard do you set for the repudiation of
> the aforementioned hearsay?
Why is he setting it at all?
I don't think that giving the RM final say in questions of
DFSG-freeness is a wise precedent to c
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 02:48:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Ah, so in general, when people find a flagrant DFSG violation in main,
> the best thing they can do is just leave it alone. Otherwise, it's a
> "change", and past inclusion is always sufficient present for future
> retention.
No,
[Mailing Debian glibc package maintainers and Debian Release Manager in
their official capacities. My apolgies for the duplicate for those of
you who are also subscribed to debian-legal, which is CCed.]
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:17:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> No, the burden of proof
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:17:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:15:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You ground your argument on "second hand reports of clarifications" in
> > the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish
> > first-hand clarif
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:15:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You ground your argument on "second hand reports of clarifications" in
> the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish
> first-hand clarifications?
Yes. If you're too lazy to be bothered doing that, don't exp
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote to Jeremy Hankins:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>[I'm taking this off-list, as this is no longer really relevant
>there.]
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When FSF include Sun RPC code, that code was licensed to FSF under
>> Sun RPC li
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:07:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing
> >solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious,
> >opportunistic bastards
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>>But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
>>>code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
>>>GPL. Technically the Sun RPC l
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There have been efforts in the U.S. to undo the effects of _Feist_
> through legislation. One example is the "Collections of Information
> Antipiracy Act"[1]. (I don't think that bill passed.)
However, such a law is also probably not Constitutional
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing
solely
because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, opportunistic
bastards
who have no qualms about filing suits with no legal basis for no other
reas
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
>> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >Sorry. I was very unclear.
>> >
>> >SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not a work, derived from
>> > GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, "extracted" f
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
>>code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
>>GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL
>>guarantees me
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
>> But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
>> code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
>> GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GP
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sorry. I was very unclear.
> >
> > SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not a work, derived from
> > GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not
> > GLIBC. Because it is not.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable.
>Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality
>involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc
>code? I don't see how that's relevant.
>>
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Anthony Towns writes:
>> Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
>> example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
>> expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
>> originality in the work to start with.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>>I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
>>>branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
>>>confused (which, as alwa
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not
>>> contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new
>>> original work of authorship.
>
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
>>branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
>>confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely
>>irre
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:13:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example.
> > That's the point: if you come up with the exa
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:09:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * Copyright requires the protected subject to be "original".
>
> I think that principle is unique to the U.S.; in fact, that's the whole
> *point* of this subthr
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:13:04PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of someone
> incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing it to a
> second person, who subsequently refines this work to create yet another
> work which happen
Anthony Towns writes:
> Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
> example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
> expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
> originality in the work to start with.
I thought I'd been following this discussion, bu
We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example.
> That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then
> either you've copied, or there's a lack of ori
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> > exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> > for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
> > reinven
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:03:13PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
>
> Utah :-)
Not what you had in mind, but damnit, now I'm going to have to go watch
_Raising Arizona_ agai
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:51, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns
>
> > You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> > exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> ^^
>
>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns
>
> > You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> > exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> ^^^
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
Utah :-)
Richard Braakman
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:07:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun,
> > the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include
> > glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers.
> > See htt
> As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun,
> the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include
> glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers.
> See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html .
You should also note that SCO
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of
> someone incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing
> it to a second person, who subsequently refines this work to create
> yet another work which happens to be identical to
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
^^
Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
--
Henning
Op di 26-08-2003, om 22:09 schreef Branden Robinson:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * Copyright requires the protected subject to be "original".
>
> I think that principle is unique to the U.S.;
I wrote that sentence only after checking my course papers, so
Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> >If I ridiculed US law for not supporting database rights, I
> >apologize. However it is important to realize that database rights
> >*are* based on a sweat-of-the-brow argument. And again, since they
> >have nothing to do
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
>Branden Robinson wrote:
>> If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being
>> grounded on "sweat-of-the-brow" arguments. In actual fact, very little
>> "IP law" in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that.
>If I ridic
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
<...>
>You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
>exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
>for copyright infringement and winnin
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Nor is "Not being able
Anthony Towns :
> You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
> reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they ha
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Nor is "Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe'",
> > > but you can't d
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:16:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > So, this license is specific to be used only as "part of a product or
> > > programm".
> > You're missing the key phra
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> * Copyright requires the protected subject to be "original".
I think that principle is unique to the U.S.; in fact, that's the whole
*point* of this subthread!
--
G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
> for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
> reinvention. For
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> This phrase read conservatively
>
> ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports
> of clarifications ("BSD, but can't use the original literally") by
> the copyri
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
GNU Libc Maintainers
If you wi
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Nor is "Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe'",
> > but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
> > things that
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > So, this license is specific to be used only as "part of a product or
> > programm".
> You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine)
> is based on: 'developed by th
Branden Robinson wrote:
> If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being
> grounded on "sweat-of-the-brow" arguments. In actual fact, very little
> "IP law" in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that.
If I ridiculed US law for not supporting database rights, I apologize
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > [database protection]
> > > Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> > > -- by virtue of the fact that it
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * If you create a database, you have the right to
> > - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database.
> > Obviously, some people want to make
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [database protection]
> > Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> > -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
[database protection]
> Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the
> creator to control the creation of copies of the work.
That's not
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> > > it isn't organized in a clever fashion.
>
> > You do not copyright a database. You claim database rights on
> > such a database if you can prove a su
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several
> > times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> > Service
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
> > > first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:02:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > I freely admit th
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
> > first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free
> > software can work at all with laws like that.
> >
> > Do
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several
> times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans.
Can you substant
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of
> > > reverse eng
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:06:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> > it isn't organized in a clever fashion. This is regarded as
> > breathtakingly obvious
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
> > "But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
> > the GPL, which include (in part 2) the
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> So, this license is specific to be used only as "part of a product or
> programm".
You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine)
is based on: 'developed by the user'
This phrase read conservatively (eg. reserving the rights not
s
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030824 23:35]:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to
> > > preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless
> > > Debian itself is devel
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> it isn't organized in a clever fashion. This is regarded as
> breathtakingly obvious by the Europeans on this list who are well up on
> EU copyright law, and
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
> "But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
> the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications
> only taking into account a few random
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> There have been efforts in the U.S. to undo the effects of _Feist_
> through legislation. One example is the "Collections of Information
> Antipiracy Act"[1]. (I don't think that bill passed.)
Lobbyists apparently tried to get i
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
