Wouter Verhelst writes:
> This is good, but it's not true anywhere else; so if the reverse
> engineering has been done outside the EU, there's a problem.
Reverse-engineering is legal in the USA.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
no copyright permissions on the
> licensed software.
Attempting to use a copyright license to extend trademark rights beyond the
statutory ones may be copyright misuse. That could lead to the abuser
losing his copyright, his trademark, or both.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
lly *is* the most reasonable thing.
If the file was created by hand-assembly then assembler is the preferred
form for modification.
--
John Hasler You may treat this work as if it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] were in the public domain.
Dancing Horse HillI waive all rights.
Elmwood, Wisconsin
butor owns the copyright on his contribution.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
t as useful as some of the document packages we distribute.
Note that I am not advocating such a package. I think such things belong
on Web sites, not in Debian.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
t.
Why do you think that a copyright owner needs a choice of venue clause in
order to file suit against you in his home jurisdiction?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
> A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
> bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL software I
would file in US district court.
--
John
onesia I will, of
course, do nothing regardless of the presence or absence of a choice of
venue clause in my license: suing him in the US would be a complete waste
of time and I have no money for international ventures.
> ...Or get him extradited somehow.
Extradition has nothing to do with civi
Francesco Poli writes:
> Isn't chrony a possible replacement?
> It conflicts with ntp, among other things...
Chrony doesn't include drivers for gps receivers, atomic clocks, etc. It
is also not well known. People would say "Debian is useless! it doesn't
even ship ntp
per to
> choose to put the original licence in /usr/doc/foobar/copyright and then
> send that silly email upstream when and if she has any changes?
Yes, as long as the package went in non-free (Your email requirement would
apply to Debian users as as the maintainer, of course).
--
John Hasler
[EMA
Henning Makholm writes:
> If you dont consider it "villainous" to set up things so it looks like
> we're not doing any indpendent development but simply copying their
> advances, I doubt we can find common ground...
I don't follow you.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED
, then. And tell Sun that their
lawyers have been misleading them all these years.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
ted with the system.
But it does not restrict what licenses can be used on those system
libraries.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
that because the unqualified statement "Everyone is permitted
to copy and distribute this license document" implies the right to copy and
distribute part of the the document, which is, as far as copyright is
concerned, what changing it amounts to.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> That is surprising. Should I lobby Qt about changing the license
> on the license?
Why don't you just email them and ask permission?
> Yes, but you can do a license such as `GPL + this cause' right?
You can do that with anything.
--
John Hasl
rmit that, and is in
my opinion DFSG compliant. It would be up to the maintainer to decide
whether or not to send you the email.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
would produce
an ordinary GPL program which we could then distribute.
> I hope the author will accept this [releasing normal code].
Certainly preferable.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
milar but original document and use it
in a project under the name GPL. The result would be the same as in your
scenario: nothing worth mentioning.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
s with a license clause.
> For example, I definitely would not want anyone using Free Software/Open
> Source Software to make nuclear or biochemical weapons, to kill people,
> to commit fraud, etc.
And you are going to stop governments, terrorists, and swindlers with a few
words in a copyright fi
ple of software that belongs in contrib.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advert
om that site, but the matter should be clarified.
The maintainer should ask the author for an email that includes that
material.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make mon
unrestricted
right to copy includes the right to make partial copies, that should
suffice.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
the computing community at large
as a market that must bear the fee.)
The legal effect of this is to grant you permission to charge whatever you
like. It's essentially guiltware.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 09:54:12PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Hamish Moffatt quotes:
> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and *
> * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby *
> * granted,...
>
> I think the only problem i
Jules Bean writes:
> There is no problem with the payment details.
True.
> Indeed the artistic and GPL make the same restriction.
The GPL does not make any such restriction. The Artistic does include a
similar one, but converts it to a request in the definitions.
--
John Hasler
as "Complete with C compiler!". This is quite different from the
license in question which forbids you to sell the software for "big bucks"
or to bundle it with a modem, or the Artistic which says that you may only
charge a "reasonable" copying fee.
--
John
attached to it go from the author to the recipient.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
copyright!"
To sell a copy is to sell a copy. The buyer owns the copy, not the
copyright.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't
t; If the author meant copy, he should have said copy.
Yes, he should. However, the usage "sell X" meaning "sell a copy of X" is
common usage. In legal documents prepared by non-lawyers common usage
rules.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
stsellers say "Over 500,000,000 copies sold!" on the
> back cover,...
Or just "Over 500,000,000 sold!".
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
insicly
forbids commercial use. He is quite wrong. It does not apply to use at
all.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running
the Program is not restricted,
> This is, IMO, what the author is referring to.
It isn't what he said.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
be baffled.
> It is what I understood by what he said.
It may very well be what he meant, but we know only what he said.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Jules Bean writes:
> Seems like a DFSG-free, if rather agressively worded ;) license.
> Let's wait for another opinion, though (John?)
Looks ok to me. They may have opened themselves up to some exploits, but
that's between them and their attorney.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECT
be acceptable but deprecated.
Licenses that say things like "This work is released into the public domain
under the GPL" are another problem entirely.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
domain. I see nothing that bars the US government from sueing to enforce
its copyrights under the laws of other nations, for example.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
BSD license
and is therefor DFSG compliant.
You should get rid of the "CLICKING ON THE SOFTWARE RELEASE BUTTON" stuff,
though. It makes no sense in the context of a Debian package.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
e noticed it because
it was in fine print. And because everyone else does it.
IMHO such disclaimers are superfluous on gratis software.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make
Regarding (4): If possible, I think this could be resolved by splitting
> the JPython license in two parts.
I believe Guido has said that he will put out a JPython release with
neither clause 4 nor OROmatcher.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Debian from the Debian archives and
the press and sell CD's. Could they get a nasty letter from CNRI's lawyers
telling them they must destroy all their CD's because they do not have a
license from CNRI? I don't think this is the case, but it would be better
to have it cle
y intention to send nasty letters to people who
> increase the distribution of JPython or Grail!
Of course it isn't, but can you speak for all your successors?
Institutional policies change.
I repeat: I think the license is free enough to go into main, but I still
would like to see it
Guido van Rossum writes:
> I say there's no need to ask.
Could a copy of Guido's message
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) be put in the copyright
file? That would satisfy me that the package can be redistributed with
full rights.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
's what they mean.
I agree, though I wish they wouldn't use that ambiguous phrasing. It would
be better to omit all reference to fees as does UC. Fat chance of getting
CMU to change it, though. IMHO it's ok for main.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
"Jikes" near "IBM" got me the URL I previously posted.
I've taken debian-private out of the cc: list.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
the ones I found this afternoon?
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
triction.
> Now my question: doesn't this fall into the same messy kind of problem as
> documentation does? Does it have to follow the DFSG point by point?
> (Think 'modifications' please)
I think it would have to be a separate package for that to apply.
--
John Hasler
[E
tellectual property attorney sees fit to bestow his
"pro bono" largesse upon us, we just have to muddle along. Think of it as
do-it-yourself case law.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
it the copyright file, then.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of
California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
company bought the data and included it in a product
> under their own license, they would have every right to sue you if you
> illegally extracted data from it.
Only if they got me to assent to a *contract* in which I agreed not to do
so. That is a matter of contract law, not copyrigh
g you do can change that.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Jules Bean writes:
> http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/NPL-1.0M.html
> I had a brief look, and didn't see any showstoppers.
I'll want to read it again, but on first reading I like it.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Ray writes:
> I can't get DejaNews to give out a correct permanent URL to it, so if you
> want to view it in DejaNews, use the Message-ID search
> (http://www.dejanews.com/forms/mid.shtml).
"Document Not Found"
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
ted
^
under the names used by the original files in the distribution of
The Program.
I see no way to comply with this. How can I possibly guarantee that
someone downstream from me will not change the name back?
--
John Has
ompliant
while addressing their special concerns.
And, this being a Debian list, we occasionally argue :)
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
ly better ways to do this, but they would require extensive
rewriting of the license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Gordon Matzigkeit writes:
> Liberal:
> Copyright (C) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
> Verbatim copying and distribution of this logo is permitted in any
> medium, provided this notice is preserved.
That seems quite sufficient.
> Official:
I see no need for this at all.
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014005,00.html
> If SPI still owns this mark, someone needs to send Sun Microsystems a
> cease-and-desist before we lose it.
I see no evidence of infringement of the Open Source mark at that URL.
--
Jo
is selling.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
sometimes unwelcome) opinion.
> It was part of the intention while phrasing the licence that those
> guidelines were met.
Oh, I think it probably does, if I either read the clause in contention as
advisory ("...should...") or squint a little and say "I think I know what
he real
evrolet"? A trademark is not a
copyright. Sending Sun a letter about this would just make us look silly.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you c
d your permission to ftp.debian.org and its mirrors?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
an't go into main they would go into non-free, not contrib.
Contrib is for stuff that is free itself but depends on something non-free.
Please post the actual license so that we can see exactly what it says.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTE
Santiago Vila writes:
> But this is not all, the UW does not want "modified binaries" to be
> distributed, and as a result of this, no binary .deb packages may be
> distributed by FTP.
Unless permission has been granted by UW. Paul has that permission.
--
John Hasler
get permission for each site. I suggested in a
previous post that he ask UW to extend his permission to ftp.debian.org and
its mirrors.
The man is a law student, and is negotiating directly with UW. I see no
reason not to assume that he knows what he is doing.
--
John HaslerThis pos
e.
> You may not remove the Designed by Obsidian link from the logon screen,
> bypass the logon screen, remove or hide links to the "About" box...
Non-free.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
might
> consider removing the extra clause and thus prevent this from being an
> issue at all.
I agree. However, his first clause seems to completely forbid
distribution.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
> Thus the program's output is html and the GPL restriction/addition is a
> hypertext link on the login screen of the system and a similar link in
> the about screen. This link points to ocs' own web page.
So the restriction is on the output of the programs?
--
John Hasl
nd off another copy of the source to
Stanford. Non-free.
This not the most well drafted license I have seen. I doubt that it says
what Stanford meant it to say.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Christoph writes:
> If I make some modifications, they want to have a copy from me, but
> not from all the users.
I'm sure that is what they intended, but it isn't what they say in the
license. Do you have this in writing from them?
It's still postcardware.
--
John Ha
o do.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
omes into widespread use, perhaps it could be added.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> Personally, I wouldn't use it until it has been greatly cleaned up.
I agree. I have been assuming that it is just a rough draft.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
e owner grants permission. I assume that is what the gentleman is
asking about.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Marcus writes:
> Okay, this was it. I am in doubt that this is GPL compatible, but if
> someone thinks he sees why it is, I am happy to learn.
I don't believe that it is.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
an relicense a piece of code that once had a bsd/x license,
> without even being the original author,..
You cannot "relicense" a work of which you are not the author.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what
J.H.M. Dassen writes:
> If the Jikes license still contains this [revocation] clause, I think
> jikes should not be in main or contrib, but in non-free only.
I agree.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
^
I don't think it is a good idea to ever refer to these things as free
software licenses.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
x27;m trying to get at the difference between depending on someone elses
> library routines (where a license change requires a new release?), and
> depending on patent code (where the license may change without a new
> release?).
One does not patent code. One patents an algorithm (though
nder a revocable license, that it should not be considered free.
Note: by "revocable license" I don't mean ones that are automatically
revoked should the licensee fail to comply with the conditions. I mean
ones such as the IBM Postfix license that can be revoked at will by the
licensor
Vaidhy writes:
> I am planning to right a book on Debian. If I read the Debian User's
> Manual and add it to the list of references, is my book a derivative ?
No.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
t would make the license
DFSG compliant.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
everyone if the owner has chosen to make them so.
> Is a patent a one way ticket into non-free?
Only if the patent owner is also the copyright owner, and refuses to freely
license the patent. See the NPL for an example of how to deal with this.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the
sful), you would be violating
> my right to determine how my invention can be used...
No, I would merely be asserting that you had granted me a license.
> ...which includes the right to change the terms of the contract that
> allows you to use my idea (the license) as long as nothi
our patent on cold fusion. I don't like that.
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time
during the term of this License, commence an action for patent
infringement against Apple.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Mika writes:
> So is this license free or not?
It is not, and neither is the program the subject library is linked
to, no matter what license the author has attached to the program.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with
that
you don't have comply with the source distribution and notification clauses
if you only use your modifications internally. Read 2.2.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill M
roprietary API, after all.
But you are free to modify it in ways that break the API.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
gt; prohibited by law.
Non-free. DFSG section 5.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Santiago Vila writes:
> The question: Does this license still allow reusability of code?
Yes.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
mming Perl_ could use the "I'm a minor so I don't have to honor my
contracts" defense, because no contract is involved. He didn't enter into
an agreement to give up his right to copy _Programming Perl_ in return for
some consideration: he lost it through operation of law
anyway with complete impunity.
> Or make use of 'public domain' data.
Huh??
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Ben Pfaff writes:
> Boy, I hope that doesn't invalidate all the code (and copyright
> assignments) I wrote for FSF and Debian before I turned 18 :-)
Did you get your mother to sign for you :-)
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAI
My thinking exactly. I'm always happy to see my legal reasoning confirmed
by someone who actually knows what he is talking about.
Of course, this line of reasoning would not apply to proprietary licenses
such as the EULA that attempt to take away rights that you would have under
just copyr
an't copyright words.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
ystem. I read licenses and comment on them
because I believe that it one of the ways I can contribute to Debian.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
rce to the software and permission to modify it.
Thus he has the opportunity to examine it for defects and correct them.
> What other changes would the debian-legal folks recommend instead of or
> in additon to the ones I've mentioned above.
None.
--
John Hasler
le again. It won't work. Does that mean the
binary is a derivative of gcc?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
A good test is to remove the header files and
try to compile again, it won't work.
Marcus writes:
> #include
> It does include them.
#include does not mean what it says.
> But anyway, this is not the point. You have certainly read my other mail
> wrt to GPL'ed header files.
If they are not copied it does not matter how they are licensed.
--
John Hasler
e of your novel is meaningless without your novel, but that fact
has no bearing on the question of whether my critique is a derivative of
your novel.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill
1 - 100 of 221 matches
Mail list logo
