On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> It doesn't matter; the GPL isn't a contract.
That's good, as it restores things to their rightful order :}
> The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 05:03:00PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> It's a license which offers terms for those who wish to redistribute
> the software. The terms are not contractual (though in many respects
> the *interpretation* of the words follows similar rules to the rules
> for interpreti
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> We have an "owner" who authored the software and holds the copypright
> for something distributed under GPL, and a "copier" who has made a
> copy of it.
Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the "author". Why
choos
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is a very interesting thought. What if you reverse it? The *author*
> > of the software receives no consideration from the person the software is
> > distributed to. I am suddenly very afraid of this.
>
> Yes,
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
> what?
Can't the owner, since he hasn't bound himself by the promise, change
his mind and revoke his promise,
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > We have an "owner" who authored the software and holds the copypright
> > for something distributed under GPL, and a "copier" who has made a
> > copy of it.
>
> Usually, what you're
At Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:09:05 +0100,
Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:51:09PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > > ;# Use and redistribution for ANY PURPOSE are granted as long as all
> > > ;# copyright notices are retained. Redistribution with modification i
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, what -- specifically -- is the distinction?
A contract is where I promise to do X and you promise to do Y. The
basic rule is that we must simultaneously agree to the terms of the
contract, which must involve each of us getting something. If one
part
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > We have an "owner" who authored the software and holds the copypright
> > for something distributed under GPL, and a "copier" who has made a
> > copy of it.
>
> Usually, what you're
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> > bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
> > what?
>
> Can't the owner, since he hasn't bound hims
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new copies.
That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his
mind, we lose the right to make and distribute new modifications:
I might still have the right to make o
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the "author". Why
> > choose different terminology, here?
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:00:59AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Because copyright rights can be transferred, and it's the current
> owner w
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:00:59AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> > > bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
> > > what? What would he sue FOR?
> >
> > That's an interesting claim.
>
> I
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Indeed
>
>a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95
> or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes
> a violation of copyright.
>
>b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. o
Henning Makholm wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new copies.
>
> That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his
> mind, we lose the right to make and distribute new modifications:
>
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > > All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new copies.
> > That is bad enough as it is.
> I think he meant `as it applies to new released versions'.
>
> I'd like to upgrade jcode.pl in fml, requesting to upstream author of fml
> and closes Bug#52108 (and maybe Bug#52109, both are release critical).
> Is there any problem?
>
there are 3 copies of jcode.pl in Debian, one in fml, one in another package,
and finally and actual libjcode-perl pa
Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new
> > copies.
>
> That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his
> mind, we lose the right to make and distribute new modificatio
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 10:22:24PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > Indeed
> >
> >a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95
> > or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes
> > a violation of c
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> > > > bound himself by contract
> The owner gets, if nothing else, publicity. This is something that
> people pay big money for.
But that is not a legal part of the promise (yo
Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> >a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95
> > or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes
> > a violation of copyright.
> >b) REMIND may not
Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Henning Makholm wrote:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > >
> > > > All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new
> > > > copies.
> > >
> > > That is bad enough as it is
Jeff Teunissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Exactly -- which is the same thing. Once you have received a copy, you
> may copy it again under the same terms, and so can the people who
> received it from you.
Yes. If I give THE VERY COPY that the promise was attached to away,
the promise may still
Brian Behlendorf writes:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > Indeed
> >
> >a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95
> > or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes
> > a violation of copyright.
> >
> >b) REMIND may not
> > > > > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> > > > > bound himself by contract
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The owner gets, if nothing else, publicity. This is something that
> > people pay big money for.
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 09:03:02PM +0100
Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I mean that, if you do license something that way, your license is
> self-defeating, because it doesn't effectively grant anybody else the
> right to redistribute your code!
No. It is completely self-consistent to say
I have my made own conditio
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his
> mind, we lose the right to make and distribute new modifications:
> I might still have the right to make one modified copy of the work,
> but I don't have any right to copy that on
27 matches
Mail list logo
