utting barriers
that prevent them from making a copy? If I'm not, then what other
barriers my I purposefully erect?
Paul Serice
llowed.
At first, I thought this was just semantics. I see your point now, but
I still question it as above.
Paul Serice
in Sections 4 and
5, is that you can make modifications AND copy AND distribute OR you
shall not make modifications.
Furthermore, my interpretation seems to further the general spirit of
the GPL more than the interpretation that you put forward.
Paul Serice
point me to an
interpretation that is any closer to the source?
Specifically, that interpretation says that a user may, without
authorization, take my computer resources, and I think this goes way too
far.
Paul Serice
ing with Stalman. After
listening to the interview, it seems clear to me that, for Stalman,
nothing supersedes the right to copy, not copyright law and surely not
inetd.
Paul Serice
e interested.)
No pointer to a transcript, but if you click directly on Part 3
http://www.wired.com/news/audio/netslaves/stallman_3.mp3
It immediately gets into piracy.
Thanks,
Paul Serice
ly? Maybe. But I've seen Debian attack the KDE people on lesser
grounds.
Paul Serice
P.S., I understand Steve Greenland's position that I have no recourse
against an unauthorized copy, but I might have recourse against the
manner in which it is obtained. I would like to hear that I would have
recourse against unauthorized copies.
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Paul Serice wrote:
> > What is legally binding is neither the text I quoted nor the text to
> > which you refer. Rather, it is the interpretation of the text to which
> > you refer (and possibly other documents) by a judge of competent
> > juris
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > This is not some random quote that I'm taking out of context. There is
> > a logical nexus here.
>
> Sure, but you're discussing an informal essay as if it were a legal
&g
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
> licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
> nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
You don't give me much time to reply.
Paul Serice
Paul Serice wrote:
>
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I agree it's all a troll, even trying to start another KDE
> > licensing flame war. I too emailed him a sensible reply and got
> > nothing back. I'll ignore him now.
>
> You don't give
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
>
> Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, I guess it's a couple of things. First I feel betrayed. Given
> > all the comments I've received about Stallman's reasonably
> > well-publici
Raul Miller wrote:
> And, since your entire rant seems to be based on the idea that laws
> are being broken, I think it's up to you to come up with the
> details.
I agree. I will try e-mailing him. The message is at the bottom.
I sent it a few seconds ago.
Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> Raul Miller writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > > I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> > > the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If t
he ultimate goal is to undermine
copyright law to such an extent that the GPL will no longer be necessary
as all software will then be free."
Paul Serice
thing with Hitler is pretty interesting.
Is there jurisprudence on the specific topic of how the fair use
exception relates to making personal copies?
>From the LaMacchia case and the "No Electronic Theft Act" of 1997 it
seems there isn't much room left in criminal cases for anything but the
statute. Do you know if that is true and if it is different in civil
cases?
Paul Serice
came to realize
the full social consequences of the GPL. You say it is obvious, but
would you agree that it is not generally distributed along with the GPL.
Paul Serice
ieve that giving out source -- if
that is what the author chooses to do -- is a good thing because it
furthers education?
Paul Serice
y, but for the benefit of the rest of use, I would recommend an
> > addition to the GPL's preamble so that this bit of information is as
> > widely distributed as the GPL.
>
> Why? Putting a philosophical statement at the beginning of a legal
> document seems quite confusing.
I thought that is what a preamble is for. There seems to be lots of
philosophical stuff in there already. Why not insert the whole story?
Paul Serice
giving me an understanding of the GPL that goes beyond
its four corners.
Paul Serice
s
than any software covered by the GPL?
Paul Serice
David Starner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 12:12:56PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > Has anyone else noticed the irony that RSA now has fewer restrictions
> > than any software covered by the GPL?
>
> Sigh. Do we have to start a gratitious flame war?
>
> . . .
my only guess is that DFSG
#3 provides an implicit exception for DFSG #5. This may work in
spirit, but if you read it, it makes a difference to me that DFSG #3
speaks of things that have to be "allowed," not things that are
"required." (I've never been too fond of textual arguments though.)
Paul Serice
e current
legal regime, for all its imperfections, results in software and ideas
that are freer than what you would have under a pure GPL legal regime.
Paul Serice
Samuel Hocevar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
>
> > Has anyone else noticed the irony that RSA now has fewer restrictions
> > than any software covered by the GPL?
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of your poin
Samuel Hocevar wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2000, Paul Serice wrote:
> > Samuel Hocevar wrote:
>
>Next time I'd be glad if you didn't send my *private* E-mails to a
> mailing list without asking me. I don't suppose debian-legal was set up
> for yo
ings-attached free. It is not GPL free.
The irony I was trying to hit on in the original post is that the same
people who bring you too much freedom are usually the ones who are
vilified. Granted, some and, often, lots of patience is required, but
it will always be possible to reap irony from this situation.
Thanks,
Paul Serice
David Starner wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 01:48:00AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > So, that's the "case in point": Under the RSA example, the current
> > legal regime, for all its imperfections, results in software and ideas
> > that are freer th
rgue that a chess tournament is a field of endeavor then I would argue
that Crafty passes muster for the same reasons it passes muster under
paragraph 5 above.
The other 7 paragraphs also seem to be off point, but check for
yourself.
Paul Serice
rent
name or version number from the original software."
Thanks
Paul Serice
d work. I doubt changing two or
three inconsequential lines does the trick, and to defend calling such a
work anything other than "Crafty" or "a Crafty clone" is hard for me to
understand.
Thanks
Paul Serice
urnaments of any kind, if they
> require strict output from chess programs and don't allow comments),
> and he can definitely require to appear in "all supporting
> documentation" (again the gpl does this).
Thanks. I will forward this and see what his reaction is.
Paul Serice
cific exchange regarding Crafty:
> > I believe you are saying the author can require a different name
> > to be used but cannot specify that name?
>
> Yes.
Paul Serice
Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 1999, Paul Serice wrote:
> > Not too long ago, we had a discussion about the Crafty developer
> > forcing the name. I'm wondering if you think it would be o.k. for him
> > to force the name of only the executable. It would "just
Following below is the new copyright for Crafty. Crafty is currently in
the main distribution. Based upon an earlier conversation we had, I
believe the new copyright places Crafty in non-free?
Paul Serice
35 matches
Mail list logo
