On 1/7/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The obvious conclusion one would draw from this is that there are no
> competitors to Linux or, at least, that all the existing ones are
> quickly being killed off. However, a quick examination of reality shows
> this not to be the ca
On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
> > > But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is go
And one more..
On 1/7/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/7/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:59:01PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> It doesn't have to be the case for an action under 16 of the Clayton
> Act for threatened harm caused by violation of 1 of the Sherman Act
> to succeed.
Well, there is not much point in debating it: I suspect we'll have a
court ruling on the FSF's motion to dismiss his
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Well, Wallace v GPL aside for a moment, regarding misstatements of the
> copyright act in the GPL, here's a quote from Lee Hollaar (the author of
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html):
I think if you want to suggest to the FSF that the language "[h]o
My suggestion to the FSF is to retire the [L]GPL ASAP and close the shop.
I suggest to relicense the entire GPL'd code base under OSL/EPL/CPL/
real-stuff-like-that.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html
Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF licenses w
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:15:18PM -0500, Alexander (Sasha) Wait wrote:
> I hate proprietary academic publishing, so,
> I'd like to see a "pipeline" from Academic Wikis to Academic Journals
> to Wikipedia. That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA.
> It's really sad to see blood boil
On 1/7/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've already talked to CC and they agreed to fix their licenses; 3.0
> and later should be fine, when they're released (2.x never will be).
>
Well - it's a goal for CC & FSF to permit content to move freely
between CC-BY-SA and GFDL (or possi
That would be *really* easy to do. To relicense the
entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project
would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe
millions of them.
And FSF is really likely to want to retire the GPL. Just note that the
sections of the co
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would be *really* easy to do. To relicense the
> entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project
> would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are thousands, maybe
> millions of them.
If they don't mind quasi p
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That would be *really* easy to do. To relicense the
> > entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL project
> > would have to agree, possibly in writing. There are
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That would be *really* easy to do. To relicense the
> > > entire GPL codebase would mean every contributor to every GPL
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
> gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
> I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract
> (according to the F
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
> > gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
> > I see fit) is made under 17
* Alexander Terekhov:
> Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
> gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
> I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a contract
> (according to the FSF), the GPL is irrelevant at the ti
On 1/7/06, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexander Terekhov:
>
> > Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
> > gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
> > I see fit) is made under 17 USC 109, not the GPL. Being not a cont
The GPL has been upheld by courts in other countries, e.g. the
Netfilter case. Please quote some actual court rulings then I'll
consider believing you.
Can we get on to discussing the real GPLv3 issues now?
Andrew
On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/7/06, Florian Weim
Can i just package the follwing and release it under the GPL?
From the website:
Andrews & Arnold Ltd make extensive use of open source software,
including linux, asterisk and many others. We contribute in various ways
(such as landline SMS app for asterisk). This page contains some free
software.
On 1/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL has been upheld by courts in other countries, e.g. the
> Netfilter case.
Oh yeah, It's a Small Welte. Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte
action) doesn't really "upheld" anything, to begin with.
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/4399
Could you PLEASE take this off-topic trolling to some appropriate
forum, and leave debian-legal for discussions that directly affect
Debian?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006, Daniel J. Priem wrote:
> Can i just package the follwing and release it under the GPL?
Not yet; see below for details.
> The software is free, you can assume a GNU licence. It is provided
> entirely as is and no liability is accepted at all. Any bug reports,
> ideas, etc, em
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:31:45 -0500 Branden Robinson / Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> Howdy legal mavens,
Hi! :)
>
> Don Armstrong and I are going to be at the FSF's GPLv3 launch
> conference[1] in Boston, Massachusetts on 16 and 17 January.
That's really good news, as I hope you'll be able to
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 08:53:23AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 1/8/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unrestricted downloads of the GPL'd stuff aside for a moment, the GPL
> > gives me a copy or two. Thank you. The distribution of those copies (as
> > I see fit) is made
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 07:20:02PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> My suggestion to the FSF is to retire the [L]GPL ASAP and close the shop.
> I suggest to relicense the entire GPL'd code base under OSL/EPL/CPL/
> real-stuff-like-that.
I suggest you dig a hole and die in it. Really.
If Rosen w
I'm currently creating a new package for Debian, and I've come up
against some licensing issues. The upstream source says it is licensed
under the GPL. However, in one of the directories there is a license
file indicating that the upstream author has used the source from
here: http://adodb.sourcefo
25 matches
Mail list logo
