. But the 'copy protection system' prevents you from showing excerpts
from that DVD (which would be fair use).
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu
s position is that fair use is legal,
just impossible. This is not an inherently contradictory position
(although an evil one).
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu
true, and you may well be), is that not *all* fair
use is eliminated by the DMCA. If you can see a work, you can comment on
it, quote it, parody it, cite it, etc. It's just that lots of fair use
can be excluded.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu
this seems like a workable approach.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam
a complicated question. On one hand, the
derivation seems tenuous at best. On the other hand, we wouldn't want to
open ourselves up to "this program may be distributed in modified form,
but only if the source is in CRAY YMP-1 assembly."
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 02:55:40PM +0100, Martin Waitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 07:18:14AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 02:03:26PM +0100, Martin Waitz wrote:
> > >
> > > OMS and all librarys are licensed under the GPL.
> > > For so
releasing certain modifications of my code.
No, you can't. The GPL restricts the *licencse* of the
modifications. It does not restrict the *content* of the
modifications. Any such restriction would violate 3, Derived Works,
and 6, Fields of Endeavor is usually interpreted to prohibit
es.
1) It requires the bad guys to file more suits, which it is not clear
they will do.
2) Texas, where Matt Pavlovich resides, has some more favorable
federal court rulings than california.
3) It will almost certainly protect international defendants.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpv5F7ZbWBWd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
n of distributiing modified versions
is in violation of the Fields of Endeavor clause of the DFSG.
Thus, the OpenDivx license is in violation of the DFSG.
References:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00109.html
Among others. (for some reason the search engine for -le
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:40:39PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
>
> References:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0012/msg00109.html
>
> Among others. (for some reason the search engine for -legal isn't
> working so well).
Another reference:
http://lists.debian.org/deb
y* the
same effect (and could be changed more easily) without the
incompatibilty. Supposedly, Brian Behlendorf and RMS are working to
resolve this incompatibilty for the Apache license. Someone may want
to urge Vovida to look into this as well.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpfOkR0DJGC3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
istribution.
Are the licenses on the other files mentioned different?
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpDZEJv2LgGy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
cpp is OK. What about the others?
Well, the two major questions are IDEA and MARS. I'm sure people have
already made a decision about IDEA, but Ihave no idea about MARS. I
would think it would have patent-unencumbered since it was submitted
as an AES candidate, but since it didn't win,
k it's exceedingly unreasonable to declare software as non-free
since the license specifies compliance with the law at that time (this
was written 5 years ago). I think this clause is clearly meant to
instruct people on the law relating to export from the US. And since
Debian h
permission of the US BXA.
Therefore, we can't even put it in non-free.
>
> > I don't think this should matter.
>
> It certainly should, and always has in the past.
I'm curious, not that I doubt you, but when in the past have we had
this situation before
t with the GPL, but these provisions make
the package non-free. However, in view of the conflicting messages,
the only course of action is to get the owner of the copyright to
state what the actual licensing terms are.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpLiuAg0vi6L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
; Does this mean that we can't say publicly that Debian is available
> in a version that runs on Intel-based computers?
I don't think it stops us from making factual claims about Debian. It
just means that we can't say "Debian: Supported by Industry-leading
code from Inte
't distribute them as artwork by
themselves, but only as part of another (presumably software)
package.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpjlbpm55biG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
; for Debian? (Please say yes :-)
>
> I don't know -- I've forwarded the question to the debian-legal list.
Well, it's a free license according to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html (it's last on the list
of GPL-incompatible licenses).
he way Perl
works). This avoids the problems raised the by the Artistic License.
You should let the upstream authors know about these problems. If
they really want people to be able to do all the things they mention
without restriction, they should consider the X license.
ich was enjoined.
The point of the MPAA prosecution was to scare people into taking
these programs down. Why should we do what they want, without
incentive?
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpqPZOR8NSDr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ant to ask him for
clarification.
If you are unable to recieve clarification, then it would probably be
ok anyway.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpDANAETs3IJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 02:32:20PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>
> Both of 'em are free. Just to follow what seems to be the authors intent,
> I'd use Artistic though.
Artistic isn't free. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
sam th
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:55:15PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:55:54PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > and he didn't make it very
> > clear at all what you should do if the Artistic License wasn't
> > acceptable (which it isn't)
>
>
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 03:05:48PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:41:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> >> I recieved this response from the author about what he permits us to
> >> distribute xodo under. I
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:45:20PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> (I'd trim the CC list but it looks like it was intended to be this
> long; go figure...)
>
> On Feb 25, Sam TH wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:55:15PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > W
[took the bug off the cc list]
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 08:03:24AM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T160640-0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > In that case, I guess Artistic is acceptable. But that is
> > unfortunate, given that this means that we have diverged from the F
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:07:34AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 12:11:21AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > Did
> > we accept the APSL (the other major point of divergence between the
> > OSI and the FSF)?
>
> No need to stir up trouble before it
nk of a license you could fit
> in the memory of a PET and still have room for 4096 bytes of data. I care
> only if a license fits the DFSG, and your arguments are based on
> misreadings and outright obfuscations.
Well, lots of people care about what RMS thinks (see Python license,
etc). And the OSI uses the same defintion that we do.
I see where you think I have misread the license, and I have tried to
show why I read it that way. I think that you are reading too much of
what we all know Larry meant, and not enough of what Larry actually
said. This is, of course, difficult to avoid, since the license has
such a long history.
But where do you think I made "outright obfuscations"?
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpcB01agNRSW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:00:07PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>
> >John Galt said:
> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >> >This statement of freely available, however, also conflicts with the
> >> >examp
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:42:53PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >
> >Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s. The current copyright law
> >is ten years older than that. I don't know exactly when the AL was
> >written, but this
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:40:02PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >>
> >> >1) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
> >> >make t
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:45:16PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:42:53PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Second, Perl was released in the mid
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:41:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >2. Default copyright was established both in the Copyright Act of 1976
> >> >and the Berne Convention
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:32:19PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >What's that supposed to mean?
>
> Meaning that from your cite, one cannot be sure that they are.
Would you like to cite some other part of the license, contesting my
in
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:20:08PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:41:28PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >2. D
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
[reply to the real post later]
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >> Let's go to another case: You do the same for OpenSSL. You've violated
> >> the OpenSSL license, since it expressly forbids linking
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 02:56:01AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:52:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >
> >[reply to the real post later]
> >
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> >>
we decide to do the following things:
1) Drop the argument
2) Not try to change the Social Contract
3) Reccomend strongly to all authors that attempt to use *only* the AL
that they use the clarified version instead, or that they use the
technique that Perl uses.
How does that s
eLicenses
3) A GPL-Incompatible license. This would mean that GPL users of your
program would have to stop using it.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpDPlQNZxQWS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
tations are just
commentary, and have no real impact, but you might want to check up on
this.
Even if the annotations did add additional restrictions, the license
is still acceptable.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://sa
on was just because the copyright
> file did not contain the full license.
I think the statement was unclear, but that would be a serious, if
easily fixable, problem.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
pgp7WihJm9pD8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
that, there are
plenty of other places. With regard to UCITA, what that will do is
make the contracts I described above legally binding, and make it
possible for them to include all kinds of nasty provisions, many of
which are blatantly unconstitutional (cf. database benchmarks). But
it wont make
But in order for it to have any legal validity, you do need to have a
little click-here-to-agree thing before the user uses the program.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
pgpuE9ESAxF0M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e,
since the Apache license is Free, this one is too.
It should be noted that it is also GPL-incompatible.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
pgppSI5jmnoTD.pgp
Desc
ested''. With this facility, the requirement is
merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a
serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program
non-free.
So names of programs are almost always acceptable (I can't think of
any reason wh
pretty cynical on the US Court system.
But, all the more reason for Debian to take a stand for principle and
distribute CSS decoders.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.d
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:33:17PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have a question: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt
> Is this a ok license. Can it go to main or does it
> have to go to non-free/contrib?
Both the NPL and the MPL are Free Software licenses.
ndom House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied 484 U.S. 890 (1987).
The text is available at
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/salinger.html
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/ke
a serious case could be made
that emails send to mailing lists are unpublished, and merely
publically preformed. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any
court cases dealing with email.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC ---
ike it, please set up your own
> list with whatever rules you prefer.
Certainly. And the person trying to get their messages removed is
foolish, and rude as well. But they might have a case in court.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33F
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:51:51PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:39:14PM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:26:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> > > that gave him the letters. One can hardly argue that a latter sent to a
> >
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 10:13:32PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:47:38PM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> >
> > But then, Tivo's remove television as a broadcast medium. The
> > technical details involved in sending a message to lots of people are
&g
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:41:33AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:56:01PM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> >
> > You could easily write a streaming SMTP client. Sure, it's a bad
> > idea, but that never stopped copyright law before. The choice of
a minimum, the copyright of the original author must also be
mentioned.
> Also I'm not sure wheter the cyphering algorithms blowfish and
> rijndael (aes) force the program to go to non-US or it can be put into
> main.
It needs to go into nonus, barring a change in policy on crypto.
lly as
> well, particularly where moral rights are concerned. (my view...)
This is definitely a problem. However, I suspect it's fundamentally
impossible to create a license which passes legal muster in all that
many different countries. This sucks, but is reality.
sam th --- [EMA
ey
try to distribute it to their friends, you could prosecute them for
copyright infringement.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
pgphT3YhzNoXz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e is no qualification for becoming a publisher. Anyone
can publish anything they want, provided they have the appropriate
copyright licenses.
Furthermore, Debian does not actually exist as a legal entity, so they
couldn't be a publisher even if that was required.
sam th ---
ctions.
This is where _Salinger_ comes into play. It is possible to infringe
on an upublished work. Additionally, it is illegal to record and
distribute a Broadway play, despite the lack of publication.
>
> >sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://us.f107.mail.yahoo.com/ym/[EMAIL
>
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:33:46AM +0100, Sergio Brandano wrote:
>
>
> > So far, only James Miller and Florian Lohoff have shown a correct
> > reading of this discussion. An explicit OpenContent agreement is
> > indeed the way to go.
>
> I forgot to ment
nd
while some people might be more willing to say "How high" for a legal
dept. at IBM, I would hope that -legal isn't one of them.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
pgpfIvolV1Yq5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ving either to anyone else, least of all the FSF.
However, the MIT Scheme license requires making a best effort to send
the changes back to the author, something that would clearly be a
dealbreaker for this client.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource
r any use of this software or documentation.
>
> The name and trademarks of copyright holders may not be used in advertising
> or publicity pertaining to the software without specific, written prior
> permission. Title to copyright in this software and any associated
> documentatio
On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 12:34:02PM -0500, Fred Gray wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 12:24:46PM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> >
> > This certainly looks both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible. The use of
> > the word 'and' rather than 'or' seems to take care of the
e former maintainer put it there. Should I
> retain or delete it?
You certainly shouldn't delete it outright.
>
> Is it simply a copyright without a license?
>
There's no license there, so you need to contact the previous
maintainer.
> Please reply directly.
27;s home jurisdiction, except by the torturous
interpretation of the appeals court, which is that everything that
happens on the internet happens in Calif. if it affects a
Calif. resident.
This claim is equivalent to the idea that if you come to Illinois, and
I defraud you, and then you go back
> The "Facts" portion of the appeals court's ruling, which is ostensibly over
> a jursdictional issue, establishes precious few facts about geographic
> localities or business contacts between them, which would seem to be
> important in a jurisdictional ruling. It does not address the fact that
> a Norwegian teenager, Jon Johansen, has claimed credit for authoring the
> DeCSS program, along with, allegedly, two anonymous residents of Europe.
> It is worth noting that reverse engineering in explicitly permitted under
> Norwegian law, and is not an alienable right under contract.
See previous citation of Bing's declaration.
Hope that helps some.
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
pgpNiPTowxLrM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
AbiWord, this seems like a workable approach.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a complicated question. On one hand, the
derivation seems tenuous at best. On the other hand, we wouldn't want to
open ourselves up to "this program may be distributed in modified form,
but only if the source is in CRAY YMP-1 assembly."
69 matches
Mail list logo
