Re: To MPL or not.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 George Danchev wrote: > On Saturday 17 September 2005 13:45, MJ Ray wrote: >>Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate. >>>http://flamerobin.sourceforge.net/license.html >>>http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.txt > > I thi

Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] So this license prohibits private modifications. Based on what I see, this was intended to be expat or BSD-like, except requiring that the source be available on distribution. This is somewhat more like the MPL. It

Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

Joe Smith writes: > "Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>So this license prohibits private modifications. > > Based on what I see, this was intended to be expat or BSD-like, except > requiring that the source be available on distribution. This is somew

Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] It has long been > held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a > cassette tape from a cd). Maybe you've just worded this badly, or maybe you're relying on some specific place's laws, but my private copying is subject to c

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:34:25 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Jennifer Brown wrote: [...] > > Also please forgive my ignorance but can someone give me a primer on > > the term "free" as it relates to this discussion. Someone once told > > me that free does n

Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

You are confusing limited fair use rights (which only exist in some jurisdictions) with substantial rights to copy and modify a work. WelltThat may be true, but in the US one cannot commit copyright infringment by simply modifying a tangible copy of a work, only by copying it. (After all, if

Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] It has long been held that private copying is not covered by copyright. (Think: making a cassette tape from a cd). Maybe you've just worded this badly, Perhaps. Regardless. In ge

Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

Joe Smith writes: >> You are confusing limited fair use rights (which only exist in some >> jurisdictions) with substantial rights to copy and modify a work. > > WelltThat may be true, but in the US one cannot commit copyright infringment > by simply modifying a tangible copy of a work, only by c

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

--- On Mon 09/19, Francesco Poli < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >>Jenifer, please also consider reading to >>have >>a more general introduction to the topic... PERFECT! Thanks Jenn ___ Join Excite! - http://www.exc

Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under 17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an essential step in the utilization of the program. Certainly if a program fails to do what you desire, changing it is esential for use of the program to do as

Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

"Michael Poole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This analogy between software and hard copies is deeply flawed. Under 17 USC 117(a), modificaton of a program is only permitted as an essential step in the utilization of the program. Under 17 USC 117(b), you need a