Mac wrote:
> One of the bloggers pointed out that in the USA, breach of copyright can
> be a criminal offence as well as a civil one
>
There was a proposal to make such a thing criminal in Europe, but AIUI,
it got rejected by the European Parliament earlier this year!
> Do you (or Matthew) kno
Mark Harrison wrote:
> In the UK, it's hard to see how the courts would do anything other than
> In the US, the concept of "punitive damages" exists,
> What I don't see (and this is where I came in - in disagreeing with some
> of the web articles written) is that a customer calling for support
Hiya
* Mac:
> Matthew East wrote:
> That seems to me not contract, but a beautiful and unexpected
> inversion of copyright law.
A "beautiful inversion of copyright law" isn't a legal concept.
The extract you've cited from Eben isn't addressing the mechanism by
which an author who publishes
Lee Tambiah wrote:
>
> Without disscussion I think the GPL 3 is a very good license which
> protects Free Software and overall should strengthen it.
I agree.
I agree that you, and any programmer, should have the right to choose
the GPLv3 in new products you create. However, I also believe that
Mac wrote:
> That seems to me not contract, but a beautiful and unexpected
> inversion of copyright law.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this line of argument... Let me
explain my understanding first, then someone can tell me what I'm missing...
- A contract is a legally binding agreement bet
Matthew East wrote:
>...The GPL is a license (hence the "L") by which (among
> other things) the licensor and copyright holder grants the licensee the
> right to use and redistribute the program subject to certain conditions.
>
> A license is a type of contract, in this case between the program m
> Mark Harrison wrote:
>> Mac wrote:
>>> You do have to hand it to Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and their
>>> colleagues - the genius evident in GPLv3 just takes your breath away:
>
>> I'm no lawyer, but in the UK at least, there are at least two problems
>> with the "legal analysis" here:
>>
>>
Mark Harrison wrote:
> It's hard to see, however, how any legal document written on 1st July
> could retrospectively apply to a contract signed on the 30th June unless
> the contract made specific provision for itself to be modified.
I may be wrong, but I thought that's exactly what GPLv2 had d
On 7/10/07, Mark Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mac wrote:
> As I understand it, GPLv3 is not a contract; it's a waiver of copyright
> that passes to those who also waive copyright. This is what's so clever
> about it - it just doesn't work like a contract or licence. I think
> this is w
Mac wrote:
> As I understand it, GPLv3 is not a contract; it's a waiver of copyright
> that passes to those who also waive copyright. This is what's so clever
> about it - it just doesn't work like a contract or licence. I think
> this is why patent/copyright lawyers have such trouble with it
Mark Harrison wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>> You do have to hand it to Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and their
>> colleagues - the genius evident in GPLv3 just takes your breath away:
> I'm no lawyer, but in the UK at least, there are at least two problems
> with the "legal analysis" here:
>
> - I had
Mac wrote:
> You do have to hand it to Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and their
> colleagues - the genius evident in GPLv3 just takes your breath away:
>
> http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/microsoft_the_copyright_infringer
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070709101318827
>
>
You do have to hand it to Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and their
colleagues - the genius evident in GPLv3 just takes your breath away:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/microsoft_the_copyright_infringer
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070709101318827
Mac
--
ubuntu-uk@li
13 matches
Mail list logo
