On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:03:44 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me clarify. :-)
>
> I have few complaints with the treatment of material for which the authors
> *claim* copyright.
>
> My complaint is about material distributed willy-nilly by its authors with
> *no* copyright
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:55:25 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've cited cases about implied licenses under both the 1909 and 1976
> Copyright Acts (in the US). As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
> for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
>
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
> interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license
> under the G
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:28:52 +, Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>
> > And GPL also says, that the person who packages and then distributes
> > breaks the rules of GPL, it has no longer right to distribute nor use
> > the GPLed work.
It is impossible for
On 13/03/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What I should have said is the final authority on the meaning of a
> > license is the highest court in the jurisdiction in which you are being
> > sued over it. So, yes, for you the final authority is a Belg
"This file is in the public domain" is sufficient in Belgian
legislation, and in any droit d'auteur legislation I know of.
sincerely, Batist
On 30/03/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Summary:
>
> If there's a file in one of my packages that only declares to be in the
> publi
[Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]
On 07/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, that's not how it works. In the presence of a valid license
> contract, one is entitled to contrac
change these conditions at will"
clause. There is simply no consensus on those future conditions. It is
effectively a license change, thus a change of contract, with every
possible consequence of notice and so on.
My apologies for digressing. In any case, judges are most often very
reasonable people, who more often than not understand that the law
should follow established practice and not the other way around.
Kind regards
Batist Paklons
On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I discuss below, there are considerable grounds for believing that the
> > category "derivative works" is completely disjoint from "collective
> > works".
>
> In other words, you c
On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >At minimum, there must be some modified form of some of
> > >the creative content of the Program in a derivative
> > >work, or it's no a derivative work under copyright law.
> > >
> > Where did you get this idea?
>
> This idea pervades the c
This book gives a history of how software was granted copyright
protection gradually through case law in the US:
A. CLAPES, Softwars, London, Quorum Books, 1993, 325 p.
I found it both useful and agreeable, albeit slightly outdated being
more than ten years old.
Kind regards
Batist
On 12/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, there is the other option: Tort Law.
Not in some jurisdiction (such as the French and Belgian one). The GPL
is a valid contract, and to sue under tort law is very difficult when
there is some contract between the parties. It has to be
On 18/05/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But considering that "colorisation" is a technique based on the use of
> a computer and a laser, and that it permits (after the transfer of the
> original black-and-white film onto a videotape medium) the application
> of colors to a f
On 19/05/05, Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spanish law says (the ugly translation is mine): "The following
> un-disclaimable and inaliable rights belong to the author: [...] 6. Retiring
> the work from the market, due to a change in their intellectual or moral
> convictions, after a p
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:02:35 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The exoneration precedent (no penetrating the veil of agency via tort
> if there's contract language to cover the conduct) is very
> interesting. It suggests that anyone who accepts copyright license
> under the G
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:28:52 +, Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>
> > And GPL also says, that the person who packages and then distributes
> > breaks the rules of GPL, it has no longer right to distribute nor use
> > the GPLed work.
It is impossible for
16 matches
Mail list logo
