On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps that is indeed what you would do. I don't consider lawyers to
> be the only persons capable of reading the law for themselves. They
> are the only ones authorized to offer certain forms of legal advice
> and legal representation,
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip Raul's honest and polite response]
> I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been
> making. In other words, I see you asserting that things which are
> sometimes true must always be true.
>
> In the case of the "cont
On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Thanks, Roberto. The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in
> > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
> >
> > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
> > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
> > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
> > an interesting commentary --
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> not. Does anyone happen to have a six-month-old copy of the FSF FAQ?
>
>From 11-2004:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
-Roberto
--
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
> > >
> > > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
> > > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
> > > the services of a lawyer (at wh
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
> believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
> the "FSF FAQ".
For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
It is, in places, a bi
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
> > believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
> > the "FSF FAQ".
>
> For the record, I disag
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Point taken. However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in
> section 6:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor
> If it where used I would suggest replacing it with
> #include "/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL" (or a file inside the source)
> and patch to make it use plain text instead of crypted data.
Yep in fact it was used as it said, by using the -L switch for both wastesrv
and the admin command
wastes
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 13 May 2005 06:30, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:20:02PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
>> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/waste/waste/license.cpp?rev=1.1&v
>> >iew=auto
>>
>> Has it ever occured to you
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>>>Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails
>>>the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely
>>>unsuitable for any serious deployment.
>
>
> [Roberto C. Sanchez]
>
>>But it can't be done, period.
>>
>>Reference: http://www.gnu.org
> > Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails
> > the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely
> > unsuitable for any serious deployment.
[Roberto C. Sanchez]
> But it can't be done, period.
>
> Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Tha
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
> code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
> *that* code under the GPL.
There are some exceptions to this. For example, if you're not th
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
[snip]
> > Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the
> > Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable
> > for any serious deployment. Note, however, that "but it
On 5/18/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
> believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
> to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably
> this is grounded on th
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
> believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
> to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably
> this is grounded on the basis of her having received no cons
[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]
> It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so. And then tried
> to "take things back". But the GPL doesn't allow for that.
It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes for
a postulate just because the FSF said so. Rather like the assumption
Hello,
Yes, you are correct. I am assuming that.
As far as I can tell, even if AOL didn't approve it, NullSoft, being
the owners of the code, are "allowed" and able to release the code
under whatever license they want to release it under. (Whether
they'll get in trouble or not from AOL, for doi
This topic has been beat to death and is the cause for most of the
devs bailing throughout the life of the project (legal concerns).
There are a couple old articles on /. that should cover all the
arguments (in the comments)...but I'm sure you'll find them all over.
here's one:
http://slashdot.o
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:40:06AM -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you
> cannot un-release it. And if that is the case, then this software is "OK".
You're assuming the people who released it had the right to do that in
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>
> >From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time, NullSoft did
> infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL (NullSoft's parent company)
> didn't like this, and that message on NullSoft's website is because of that.
> (And thu
Hello,
(Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but)
>From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time,
NullSoft did infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL
(NullSoft's parent company) didn't like this, and that message on
NullSoft's website is because o
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:20 +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I'm on the way of making a debian package for Waste, and I would have the
> folowing two questions about your software:
>
> Does the licence really reflect GPL?
> This arise because of this:
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net
On Friday 13 May 2005 06:30, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:20:02PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/waste/waste/license.cpp?rev=1.1&v
> >iew=auto
>
> Has it ever occured to you that this might be the license text itself, in
> some com
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:20:02PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/waste/waste/license.cpp?rev=1.1&view=auto
Has it ever occured to you that this might be the license text itself, in
some compressed form?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
26 matches
Mail list logo
