On 7/12/05, Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mr. Ravicher's public statements on legal matters appear to be largely
> > conformable to the law as I understand it (IANAL), with the exception
> > of his repetition of the canard that it is the knowledge of the
> > particular patent number i
Daniel James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I also find it hard to believe that the Xiph.org developers would have
> put many years of work into the Ogg codecs (Vorbis, Theora etc) on
> the basis of mere FUD.
Well, Vorbis has taken advantage of open development to produce
a tighter encoding.
* Daniel James:
> Hi Florian,
>
>> There are more recent cases which have also been enforced against
>> embedded devices containing MP3 decoders.
>
> I couldn't find anything with a quick search on Google - any keywords
> I should try?
This is mostly a European issue, it seems:
http://www.hei
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even so, Mr. Ravicher appears to be on the saner end of the range of
> FSF associates. [...]
Isn't defaming a lawyer rather a stupid tactic for someone in the US?
For those wondering what part of the sanity range patenter Michael K
Edwards inhabit
On 13 Jul 2005 07:50:44 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Even so, Mr. Ravicher appears to be on the saner end of the range of
> > FSF associates. [...]
>
> Isn't defaming a lawyer rather a stupid tactic for someone in the US?
I have no w
* Daniel James:
> The more I look into this issue, the more I am convinced that we have
> to promote the free formats better.
This is certainly true, I'm not too happy with Debian's policy on MP3
and its patents, either.
But keep in mind that many of those patents are fairly generic and
probabl
Hi Dan,
> And, it is possible to receive a patent license that does not cause
> a failure to comply with Section 7. The GPL Section 7 says "For
> example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
> redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies
> directly or indirectly thr
Hi Florian,
> This is mostly a European issue, it seems:
>
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/54440
>
> The company is called Sisvel:
>
> http://www.sisvel.com/licensing_programs.asp
>
> IIRC, I looked at the patents, and they were hard to enforce
> against mere software distributors, bu
Hi Florian,
> keep in mind that many of those patents are fairly generic and
> probably affect Ogg Vorbis, too.
I think the Xiph developers have been very careful not to use the
techniques of MP3 for this very reason. However, I don't think any
developer is immune from patent intimidation, so i
Free-software-MP3 enthusiasts who believe in the protective power of
ignorance, and who are not already sticking their fingers in their
ears and shouting "la la la", may wish to do so before reading
further. (They may also wish to start work on their affidavit
demonstrating that their local ISP pr
On 7/12/05, Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[quoting, I think, Daniel James]
> > That seems a little 'head in the sand'. The MP3 patent holders have a
> > truckload of patents on the format in many countries, going back to
> > the 1980s. I don't see how a business could distribute free sof
I believe we have now gone way off topic from the original post, which
was about whether the existence of a patent that someone (whether the
patent holder or anyone else) believes may cover something similar to a
GPL'd free software product triggers GPL Section 7 and, thus, forbids
the redistri
On 7/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the latest word (AFAIK, IANAL, TINLA) on the subject from the
> Federal Circuit en banc, I recommend Knorr-Bremse v. Dana,
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/Fed/011357v2.html . This
> ruling reversed the district court's fin
Hi Michael,
> the Federal
> Circuit ruled that "where, as here, a potential infringer has
> actual notice of another's patent rights, he has an affirmative
> duty to exercise due care to determine whether or not he is
> infringing,"
That's the kind of obligation I was wondering about. GPL section
On 7/13/05, Daniel James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[quoting me, quoting Knorr-Bremse]
> > the Federal
> > Circuit ruled that "where, as here, a potential infringer has
> > actual notice of another's patent rights, he has an affirmative
> > duty to exercise due care to determine whether or not he i
the Federal Circuit ruled that "where, as here, a potential
infringer has actual notice of another's patent rights, he has an
affirmative duty to exercise due care to determine whether or not
he is infringing,"
That's the kind of obligation I was wondering about. GPL section 7
refers to conditi
Patentees only win patent infringement cases 1/3 of the time, so it is
not unreasonable to feel confident that a dispute would result favorably
for the accused infringer. Further, whether your company or any other
defendant could afford to defend yourself if sued has no impact on
whether a "condi
On 7/13/05, Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Patentees only win patent infringement cases 1/3 of the time, so it is
> >>not unreasonable to feel confident that a dispute would result favorably
> >>for the accused infringer. Further, whether your company or any other
> >>defendant could
Hi Dan,
> This is not a "condition[] imposed on you ... that contradict[s]
> the conditions of [the GPL]," as per GPL Section 7, because
> exercising due care to avoid infringing a patent and redistributing
> software royalty free are not mutually exclusive.
They might be if we choose to ship a G
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:38:29AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Debian policy governs the technical details of package creation.
> > This is a matter that's out of scope of the policy document; my
> > comments reflect the de facto policy of the ftp te
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005 07:50:44 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even so, Mr. Ravicher appears to be on the saner end of the range of
FSF associates. [...]
Isn't defaming a lawyer rather a stupid tactic for someone in
Full version of the software.
http://gnbah.i74f3z0bxs0pfji.barwaldgakg.info
Anyone who truly loves God travels securely.
Imitation is the sincerest form of television.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:10:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:25:03PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> > Because the "current illegitmate patent regime" is the law.
>
> No, it is not. Portfolios of invalid patents hold their value by means of
> FUD and financial m
On 7/13/05, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you classify your knowledge that some of them smoke crack?
Hyperbolic (and obviously non-literal) ridicule, not of the persons
involved but of the premise (wholly unfounded in law and legal
history) that the GPL is a creature of any
On 7/12/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That
> copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission from
> the owner. If that's not the way you read 106(1), then downloading
> copyrighted mp3s
First, my apologies for top posting... I'm using Outlook at the moment
(shudder) and can't for the life of me figure out how to get the old text
properly indented. So this is the best I can do.
As for Specht V. Netscape, Michael, I know you are a smart guy who is good
with citations; it boggles
On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for Specht V. Netscape, Michael, I know you are a smart guy who is good
> with citations; it boggles me that you would reference this case. This case
> deals with the enforceability of click-wrap licenses, with particular
> attention to forc
On 7/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Click-wrapping the GPL is of course insane ...
Er, that is, it's IMHO silly to argue that click-wrapping the GPL
makes some stray anti-patent term binding on people on whom it would
otherwise not be, and insane to compound the error by tr
On 7/12/05, Daniel James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to reports from free software developers, it's difficult to
> create MP3 encoders without using technologies described by the
> patents.
It's difficult to create JPEG image rendering software without using
technologies described by M
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:31:37PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That
> copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission from
> the owner. If that's not the way you read 106(1), then downloading
> copy
Pleasure your women - size does matter!
http://www.fuxnyp.com/ss/
Autobiography is an unrivaled vehicle for telling the truth about other people.
Half this game is 90% mental.
The past is the only dead thing that smells sweet.
Man without religion is the creature of circumstances.
On 7/13/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's difficult to create JPEG image rendering software without using
> technologies described by MP3 patents.
So do tell us where MP3 patents fit -- what patents, which claims, and
what part of JPEG compression? None of the patents discussed be
On 7/12/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have seen software that has a click-thru GPL before. I can't remember
> offhand what the software was, but Ive definitely seen it.
Cygwin / MinGW setup.exe, for instance, IIRC.
Cheers,
- Michael
Added debian-legal; please drop debian-devel on follow-ups.
On 7/9/05, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is still using a copyrighted/trademarked (don't know which) name
>
> There is no such thing as a copyrighted name. The name does appear to have
> been a trademark at one time, but
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 03:14:22PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:31:37PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That
> > copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission
> > from
> >
On 7/13/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #1 is "why is the Napster downloader guilty"; I don't have an answer to that
> (though I believe that's only due to my poor understanding of copyright law,
> and not evidence supporting Sean's argument).
As I see it, the Napster "downloader" i
"Sean Kellogg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "If individual A is authorized to distribute software, and individual B
> initiates an action that results in a copy being made of that software from
> A's distribution server, has B violated the original author's 106(1) rights?
> Or, as I believe Glenn
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:49:42PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I think what he's saying is roughly: 1: if A has no license to distribute
> the software, puts it on a server, and B downloads it, why is B guilty of
> copyright infringement if it's A who lacked a license to distribute; or
> 2: why i
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 02:40 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As for Specht V. Netscape, Michael, I know you are a smart guy who is
> > good with citations; it boggles me that you would reference this case.
> > This case deals with the enfo
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:10 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
> "Sean Kellogg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "If individual A is authorized to distribute software, and individual B
> > initiates an action that results in a copy being made of that software
> > from A's distribution server, has B violated
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The
> question is whether its "okay" to mandate acceptance of the GPL at
> download.
Since the GPL itself does not require you to accept it unless you want to
modif
Purchase generic drugs from our #1 ranked generic drugs provider.
http://personalities.mustajek.info/?leafyxtvuyadulteratingzvpverifiable
Not by age but by capacity is wisdom acquired.
All created things are impermanent. Strive on with diligence.
Good teaching is one-fourth preparation a
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The
> question is whether its "okay" to mandate acceptance of the GPL at download.
> I am suggesting that you have to agree to it in order to avoid copyright
> in
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 10:32 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:07:49PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > I'm talking about copyright infringement. Maybe I'm the only one?! The
> > question is whether its "okay" to mandate acceptance of the GPL at
> > download. I am suggesting
On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:10 pm, Rich Walker wrote:
> > Given that Debian is a global distribution, perhaps your question
> > should reference something other than local law?
> >
> > I checked '"106(1)" rights' on Google, and it appears to be
45 matches
Mail list logo
