Re: GPL violations: make it harder

On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:23:34PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: > > > For patches to be licensed otherwise would require that someone > > write some nasty scripts to patch the kernel given explicit line > > numbers, etc... and it is likely possible in th

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:23:34PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: > For patches to be licensed otherwise would require that someone > write some nasty scripts to patch the kernel given explicit line > numbers, etc... and it is likely possible in theory, but doubtful > that anyone would ever do it d

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

D]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >Subject: Re: GPL violations: make it harder > >sorry i should have pointed to this in my previous response -- read ><http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html> if you haven't already. Haven't seen it yet.

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

sorry i should have pointed to this in my previous response -- read if you haven't already. (really wish i knew more about these topics outside the US... i'm even naive regarding these laws in my own home country Canada.) -dean - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff Epler wrote: > strings plus code that I wrote. (My actual desire was to figure out a way > that I could release QuakeC modifications under the GPL, when the base > QuakeC source was not GPL. I hope there's no ethical brown stuff involved > in that desire!) assuming you

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote: > If even one file in the kernel source gets modified, then the entire > patch is GPL via the GPL assimilation rules in COPYING - regardless of > what the author of the patch says. IANAL. i know this is what the GPL wants, but AFAIK it's never been test

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:23:34PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: > For patches to be licensed otherwise would require that someone > write some nasty scripts to patch the kernel given explicit line > numbers, etc... and it is likely possible in theory, but doubtful > that anyone would ever do it du

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andreas Dilger wrote: >Brian Hayward writes: >> I also think it's a logical conclusion that a patch to a GPL'd program is >> released under the GPL - even if you don't specifically say so. > >Actually, this totally makes sense, because a patch contains "context" lines >and the

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

Brian Hayward writes: > I also think it's a logical conclusion that a patch to a GPL'd program is > released under the GPL - even if you don't specifically say so. Actually, this totally makes sense, because a patch contains "context" lines and therefore includes GPL code in it - hence it MUST be

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

> Correct, in fact you have to explicitely state "I place this code in th= > e > public domain" before it becomes so. You should btw never do this. Placing something in the public domain does not imply any disclaimer of warranty or liability. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsu

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

>Then it's actually not licensed to anyone, and is thus illegal to use >by anyone (unless you say otherwise, of course.) You don't have to >put the © symbol into something for it to be copyrighted (although a >legal copyright notice, meaning "©", "Copyright", or "Copr", the year, >and the owner -

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> By author:Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > I have been following it in this list for longer - you cut the thing you are > > sitting on when telling people who say "I saw GNU licence violation" > > to not to bother or tu

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote: > There was no "GNU licence violation", because there is no GNU licence in a > patch. You automatically own an implicit copyright on anything you create. Regardless of whether you specify a license for code you write, anyone who steals it is breaking the

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

Andre Hedrick wrote: > > There is overproduction of generic-purpose software in world and > > of course lots of companies are going to bancrupt soon, but if you > > continue this way, GPL is going the same way... > > Do not follow the thought, sorry. The Novell stuff. Sorry to say, but who need

Re: GPL violations: make it harder

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Elmer Joandi wrote: > Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > My and co-worker's code for doing full taskfile access under linux was > > rejected here but is being used in MicroSoft Whistler 2001. They are > > quick to grab the very best of Linux and adopt it for their own. > > ? You me

GPL violations: make it harder

Andre Hedrick wrote: > My and co-worker's code for doing full taskfile access under linux was > rejected here but is being used in MicroSoft Whistler 2001. They are > quick to grab the very best of Linux and adopt it for their own. ? You mean that they did it illegally and you can show a way