BSD license.
Perhaps a nitpick, but the BSD license does not give you the
power to relicense the work. You have several rights, including
the right to combine the work with GPL-licensed code, but not
to release the work itself under GPL.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speak
't see why it's relevant that a license grant is or is
not part of a contract. As long as the licensor grants sufficient
permission to meet the DFSG, what's the problem?
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
an't, but you can agree to almost everything.
There's a big dispute here about copy protection measures and
their impact on fair use. You have the right to make a copy for
private use, but what if the copyright holder asks you to agree
in the license agreement that you do not exercise that right?
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My response: I do not accept the license grant. Therefore, I
> > have rejected your offer and so I am not bound to do anything
> > in return.
>
> So if you say you want to give m
ring in an 'agreement' with you
but with the original licensor.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
expression. I think this is in
line with the EU database directive.
Right now US producers cannot claim sui generis database rights
in Europe. Their home country does not offer similar protection
for European producers, and that's a requirement of the directive.
Also see
http://www.iusmentis
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > Since the contract does not give me obligations, you cannot
> > enforce anything. But I can enforce it against you if you
> > later say I am not licensed.
> I think that is the key point. In common-law countries
om other countries, since they feel it
is important to harmonize with these other countries (and
probably also because that means they have to study fewer
technical details).
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
hat's not true. It's just the other way, the Berne Convention is a
> typical civil law construct.
Right. And it was the USA that had to adapt its law to conform;
everyone else had already done so about 90 years earlier. :)
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
applicaple to
> software?
I think he's trying to say that his moral rights were violated
by SuSE when they made a "broken" version of cdrecord. You are
indeed not allowed under German law to modify a work in such a way
as to damage the original author's reputation or good na
ll EU member states have implemented this directive
yet.
See
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/ecommerce/digsig.html
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
he Directive at
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/ecommerce/legal/documents/1999_93/1999_93_en.pdf
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
ou have a contract. No
consideration needed.
The license has been discussed extensively on the Open Source
Initiative's list:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:9114:200411:ppagmfjaoaoddmbfniog#b
Apparently the German lawyers who wrote it are thinking about
revisions.
Arnoud
-
se protection that's at least
as strong as what the EU Directive gives (art. 11 of the Directive).
And I'm not aware of any non-EU jurisdiction that recognizes
database rights.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyri
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Arnoud Engelfriet:
> > Since they are US-based, ISOC cannot enjoy any database rights
> > until the US adopts their own database protection that's at least
> > as strong as what the EU Directive gives (art. 11 of the Directive).
>
> Un
t
was the default, but I guess under US law you never know.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
er 2000, Compaq was sued:
http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_00-11-20_m2.html
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of &
have
patent licenses themselves can license the plugins separatly.
URL: http://www.fluendo.com/products.php?product=plugins
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To
emption for personal use of
patented technology. Besides, there's no money to be gained from
sueing individuals that use a patented technology privately.
I don't see where you got the "distributors" from, since the
note only speaks of "personal use".
Kind regards,
virtue of subsection (1) above.
One could argue that "other person entitled to work the
invention" can mean "a person performing the acts privately
and for purposes which are not commercial". I'd have to check
with a UK colleague whether that's accurate.
Arnoud
--
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/16/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This of course presumes that a sequence of bits is a "product" in
> > patent law. I'm not aware of any caselaw either way. But it does
> > seem likey that this
European patent is invalid because it's a
computer program as such."
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> >I don't know of any caselaw in any European country in the past ten
> >years that says "This European patent is invalid because it's a
> >computer program as such."
>
> That's not the case
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> >Then the formula remains
> >public domain; you just can't make, use or sell a program that
> >implements the formula. Were the formula patented, then you couldn't
> >even publish a textbook.
> Unfor
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/19/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's basically how patent law works in every area. You can
> > publish the knowledge but not apply the knowledge to make, use
> > or sell a working device or actual product
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:10:10 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > More like, the expression in .obj is patented, but the expression
> > in .PDF is not. Feel free to publish papers; don't distribute
> > devices that execute the algorithm disclosed in
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/20/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The law says so: articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.
> > http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ar52.html
>
> Understood that that's the statutory basis for the subject m
MJ Ray wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The law says so: articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.
> > http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ar52.html
>
> If the EPO is an artefact of the EPC, it can't be "the people
> who wrote th
arrier with
software to be a product that is sold because it is transferred
to someone else in return for money. The license is then simply
the general terms & conditions of the sale.
However, it's fairly established that if you modify the work
before reselling it, exhaustion does not appl
my understanding that this part of clause 5 has
be deleted in the next draft.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I believe Arnoud Engelfriet mentioned that this clause (#5) has been
> removed from the draft. I havn't checked. If so, that's good; this
> is clearly the most problematic clause.
Jennifer Machovec, who's drafting the license, posted a new
version
visions like
that contained in the first sentence of section 5 are fraught with
potentially serious unintended consequences, and are not an
appropriate vehicle for protecting the freedom of free software
against the serious threat posed by software patent litigation."
Arnoud
--
Arnoud En
everyone else to redistribute
those binaries. I do not think that that in itself is sufficient
to _demand_ source from that person. There has to be something
else, like a statement that this software can be freely modified
or may be copied by anyone.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorne
tems.
At a glance they seem related to long/short filename conversion
like VFAT does.
I have no idea whether Linux' FAT support infringes on these patents,
but this definitely should be investigated.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patent
sGPL
It seems logical that they are of the same opinion regarding
plugins.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
seems to confirm this. Eben Moglen's answer to question 2 in
this Slashdot interview seems to confirm this.
http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/
the two is creating
something new based on two pre-existing works.
And since the FSF's logic is "linking at runtime means
derivative work before runtime", it follows that the bundle
is a derivative work of the plugin.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package
> > containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative
> > work of the 'barnitz' plugin. Afe by
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> >If I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package
> >containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative
> >work of the 'barnitz' plugin.
>
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2003, at 08:25, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> >>That doesn't follow. If we assume linking at runtime means creating a
> >>derivative work before runtime, then we can conclude only that the
> >>plugin is a derivative work of the
new version.
But if the software is only licensed under GPLv2, there is no
way I can use it under GPLv3 without the author's permission.
See e.g. the Linux kernel.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This way the FSF can introduce a new version of the GPL and I
> > can use any software with the above text under that new version.
> > But if the software is only licensed under GPLv2, there is no
law.
Sections 2 and 4 of the Norwegian law seem quite comparable.
Electronic texts of laws (in English) are available through
http://clea.wipo.int/
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The FSF recommends the very construct "version 2, or at your option
> > any later version" precisely because the default is just GPLv2.
>
> The GPL FAQ says it is so any new versi
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2003, at 13:38, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> >However, what I'm saying is that if you bundle the existing
> >host and the existing plugin into a composite work, you may
> >have created a derivative work. Just like if I put an existin
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >>A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
> >>assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are
> >>
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The package is the result of collection and
> > assembling of two preexisting materials. However, what is the
> > reason for qualifying the resulting work as an original work
> > of au
But software just isn't discussed much (other than
the no-reverse-engineering-unless and one-backup-copy provisions
and the like).
Copyright law seems to have been written with the traditional
idea of selling binaries under proprietary licenses in mind.
This makes it very difficult to cope wi
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The original issue, as far as I understood is, was whether it
> > is allowed to bundle a GPL-licensed plugin with a host program
> > under a GPL-incompatible license. Or actually, a host that
&g
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But anyway, although computer programs definitely are recognized
> > as subject to copyright in the EU, they do not fit the definition
> > of "derivative work" or "adaptation" v
r use in an
infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing
use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for te
is written to apply to sale of PHYSICAL
goods. No one knows what happens if you follow its clauses when
dealing with software, so everyone states it doesn't apply.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:00:35 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > I thought the point of the AFL was that it was effectively
> > attribution-only. So you don't have to give anyone source code
> > if you distribute an AFL-licensed binary.
>
> I
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:56:54 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > You're right. The license is intended to be a common-law
> > contract. Hence the phrases about assent. So the idea is that the
> > licensee has agreed to everything in the licens
n copyright law
(available through http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/ in English)
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
of protection in the
country of origin of the work."
And under article 5(1) an author, even the US Government,
can claim foreign copyrights for works that qualify as
"literary or artistic" under the Berne Convention.
I couldn't find a basis in the BC for what you are saying abo
s that an offer is accepted. No consideration etc. necessary.
I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaki
Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
> >I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
> >clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
> >the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
> >
> >
> I
arious EC states first, and in practice that often results
in slightly different laws. So there is no telling what may happen
if someone actually tries to argue this in court.
Interesting related article at Advogato:
http://www.advogato.org/article/763.html
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:41:30PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > A dominant market player could use the GPL in an abusive way.
> > For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
> > under GPL.
>
> After thinking about a n
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-03 19:41:30 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
> >under GPL.
>
> People fork them and create competition?
No, people would be forced to licens
tribution at all.
The clause does not even require a licensee to license other
licensees for access to his improvements.
Effectively, these clauses say "you must send us all your
improvements and license us to do whatever we want with them."
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
n intervene if they're wrong.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/21/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The corresponding US patent US4750121 was allowed without any such
> > problem. Claim 1 does not even recite "a computer", only several
> > "means" that perfo
s does not affect the original copyright in the Fortran version.
And the translator needs permission to create this derivative work.
If the original program infringes on a patent, then the
transformed program will also infringe. Patents cover
functionality, not specific programs.
Arnoud
--
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Arnoud Engelfriet:
> > If the transformation from Fortran to C involves creative activity,
> > then the person who did the transformation may hold a copyright in
> > the C-version. Compare a translation from French to English of a
> > b
pplies only when the invention relates to
the stated subject matter as such.
> The "as such" phrase is presumably intended to allow patents on
> material which happens to use a mathematical method/artwork/etc.,
> not on material for which the entirety of the inventive portion is
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > If you provide the program loaded into a computer, ready to execute,
> > then the court may likely hold that you infringe. If you publish
> > a printed piece of paper with the program's source, then you likely
> &
estrictions' with regards to
> GPL 6, and thus the LGPL and GPL are incompatible.
The LGPL contains a provision that says "you can convert the license
of this software to the actual GPL if you want" (article 3). That
makes it GPL-compatible.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfrie
h it's
easy to write single sentences that are longer than haikus.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
effectively be an independent fork from then on.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubsc
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:23:40PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > John Morrissey wrote:
> > > I'm wondering what kind of documentation we should have that explicitly
> > > authorizes me to release this software (copyright still held by
), but the GPL says I must apply
the GPL's terms to the work as a whole.
If I now do not release source of the work as a whole, I comply
with the MPL but not the GPL. This can only mean one thing: I
elected the option to use the work under the MPL.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch &
ld Welte, its copyright holder. Or see his website at
http://www.gpl-violations.org/
Regards,
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
t about RFCs that are not Internet Standards?
If you're going to prescribe a disclaimer, it needs to be
correct in all situations.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmenti
take off the linking
exception from the GNAT license?
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Arnoud Engelfriet:
>
> > Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> > exception from the GNAT license?
>
> A requirement not to remove the exception would be a further
> restriction as far as the GPL concerned.
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Where is the statement that allows you to take off the linking
> > exception from the GNAT license?
>
> It is not quite clear how the exception is to be interpreted. There
> are at least two
censor for having created copies without permission,
> does not cause a license grant _from me_ to magically spring into
> existence.
Correct.
> These sloppities lend support to the hypothesis that the exception was
> not drafted by the FSF's usual license advisors. Is it rea
e work, the GPL's requirements only apply
when you distribute the derivative work. People may easily interpret
the above as meaning that you _have_ to publish such a work even
if the derivative work was purely for internal use.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European
his product includes PHP software, freely available from
> > > <http://www.php.net/software/>".
then he's forced to lie if he just distributes the one package.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
about
the authors instead of the PHP development team? Right now,
only the PHP team gets the benefit of the disclaimer, not the
authors of the software.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY ... DAMAGES
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European pat
accordance
with the BSD license.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
creates a derivative work. With that language, they try to
take away that worry.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:18:15AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > They may be worried about whether dynamic linking against their
> > software creates a derivative work. With that language, they try to
> > take away that worry.
>
> But they
to hear afterwards how many people actually
asked for this (and how many people took just the binaries CD).
It might be useful as a data point next time this question comes up.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyrig
one pays attention when handling the estate,
several years later it may be impossible to figure out who
actually inherited the copyright. Worst case, you'll need to
wait another 70 years until the copyright expires.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking o
rage medium, written offer, etc).
And this just occurs to me: do I need to have a world-readable
/usr/src if I let people log into my system and use a tool that
is GPLv3 with 7d enabled?
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
P
e measure, in the ordinary course of its operation,
requires the application of information, or a process or a
treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain
access to the work.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc1201.htm
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfri
ean Union Final Directive on Copyright
URL: http://cryptome.org/eu-copyright.htm
There they use "acts which are not authorised by the copyright
holder".
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR e
.
>
> Doesn't German patent law adhere to the EPC?
Of course. The German Supreme Court however has the same
interpretation of "software as such" as the European Patent Office.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents,
Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > Of course. The German Supreme Court however has the same
> > interpretation of "software as such" as the European Patent Office.
>
> This means that they completely disr
gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/4-oa/wto/wto01.htm
Article 9 of TRIPS says that Taiwan has to comply with Articles 1
through 21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the Appendix thereto.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm#1
So for all intents and purposes, Berne applies in Taiwan.
Arn
age to
this list, yet I can quote the above because I need to respond
to your argument.
If I copy "a great extent" of the program, I exceed the boundaries
of quotation and so need to show I am licensed to do so. And that's
when the copyleft clause comes into play.
Kind regards,
Krzysztof Siewicz wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet napisa?(a):
> > If you make a valid quote, the license (if any) of the work is
> > completely irrelevant.
>
> Actually, there is jurisprudence in Poland that parties to a contract
> may limit or precise what they consider to
he copyright holder to the maximum
extent permitted by law. Invalidity or unenforceability of any part of
the above shall not affect any other part.
(You can't waive your right to protest against mutilation of
your literary work, and software is a literary work according
to Berne and WIPO.)
Arnou
fuses consumers, and therefore
your disclaimer was *not* conspicuous.
So it's not just monkey-see, monkey-do, but more like
monkey-worry-about-malpractice.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for tec
s "because you're
not supposed to have lowercase in disclaimers". Well, that at
least takes care of their "all caps is unreadable" argument.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained fo
gent."
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#204
Without a piece of paper with Adam's signature saying otherwise,
the copyright remains with him. So Ed should ensure he does not
change the copyright notice.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney -
with that
gaming company. It's really not very clear whether a unilateral
license can be revoked or superseded by a later agreement.
Given that unclarity, getting a piece of paper from Adam
with explicit permission seems to be the wisest course of action.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch &am
e original (BSD) terms.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
