Representative Coble says "there have been very few complaints from intellectual
property holders". This is not true. I am quite sure that the vast majority of the protesters have at some time or other written something original and are therefor "intellectual property owners".
The box is their property: they loaned it to you for you to use while you had a contract with them. Now that the contract has been terminated they have a right to get it back. I don't think that this has to be spelled out explicitly in the contract.
However, it seems to me that you have grounds to sue them in your local small claims court for breach of contract. You can seize the box as compensation.
The default page in the Debian Apache package contains our logo. As a result, we are regularly accused of defacing Web pages when someone bungles a configuration change. I wonder how often time-A.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov gets accused of "attacks" as a result of the default configuration of my chrony package.
Potentially Viral Software means software which is licensed pursuant to terms
that: (x)
create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the
Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or
immunities under Microsoft?s intellectual property or proprietary rights in the
Software.
Such terms cannot exist. Nothing I put in my license can bind Microsoft in any way with respect to works that they own. My license to you is an agreement between you and I. Microsoft is not a party to it, receives no consideration from me for it, had no opportunity to examine and reject it, and indeed doesn't even know it exists.
The GPL does _not_ require the release of derivatives of GPL'd works. Instead it _forbids_ their release under any other terms. Thus a derivative containing both GPL'd components and components licensed under terms that forbid release of derivatives under the GPL (the subject Microsoft license, for example) may not be released at all without infringing the copyright on the GPL component (and the copyright on the other component as well).
Publicly Available Software means...
any software that
requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such
software
that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or
distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making
derivative
works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge.
Such requirements would violate the DFSG and so works licensed under them would not be Free Software at all.
Publicly Available Software
includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the
following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models
similar to any of the following: (A) GNU?s General Public License (GPL) or
Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the
Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License,
No it doesn't. None of those licenses meet the definition of 'Publicly Available Software' that immediately preceeds that statement.
As sole author you have the right to release your program under as many non-exclusive licenses as you choose. The University's copy goes to them under their license while the copy you put up on Source Forge is under the GPL. Any conflicts between the licenses are irrelevant. GPL compatibility only matters when combining works of different authors.
Bolt large heatsinks to both the inside and outside of one side of your lockbox (strip the paint off first). Install a fan inside blowing air over the heatsink. If possible install another fan outside blowing air over the outside heatsink, and if possible replace the steel between the heatsinks with aluminum. This technique is used in some military equipment.
SGI's goal here is probably not so much to stop the OP from using his trademark as to go on record as having taken note of his usage. If SGI ever actually sues for infringement of the mark the defendant will claim that it has fallen into the public domain and drag in every utterance that could by any stretch of the imagination be said to be similar. SGI would like to be able to show that they have dealt with these, and producing a letter "expressing concern" would do so.
IMHO the proper response to a letter such as that received by the OP is a letter politely explaining why your usage does not infringe. In many cases you will never hear from them again. There is no need to panic until you receive a registered letter clearly threatening to sue, at which point you can either call your lawyer or just give them what they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Representative Coble says "there have been very few complaints from intellectual property holders". This is not true. I am quite sure that the vast majority of the protesters have at some time or other written something original and are therefor "intellectual property owners".
Boycott those who lobbied for and benefit from the DMCA, not those of us who have always opposed it.
Before you try this you should be aware that this is the part of the world where lutefisk originated.
The box is their property: they loaned it to you for you to use while you had a contract with them. Now that the contract has been terminated they have a right to get it back. I don't think that this has to be spelled out explicitly in the contract.
However, it seems to me that you have grounds to sue them in your local small claims court for breach of contract. You can seize the box as compensation.
The default page in the Debian Apache package contains our logo. As a result, we are regularly accused of defacing Web pages when someone bungles a configuration change. I wonder how often time-A.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov gets accused of "attacks" as a result of the default configuration of my chrony package.
The GPL does _not_ require the release of derivatives of GPL'd works. Instead it _forbids_ their release under any other terms. Thus a derivative containing both GPL'd components and components licensed under terms that forbid release of derivatives under the GPL (the subject Microsoft license, for example) may not be released at all without infringing the copyright on the GPL component (and the copyright on the other component as well).
Such requirements would violate the DFSG and so works licensed under them would not be Free Software at all. No it doesn't. None of those licenses meet the definition of 'Publicly Available Software' that immediately preceeds that statement.As sole author you have the right to release your program under as many non-exclusive licenses as you choose. The University's copy goes to them under their license while the copy you put up on Source Forge is under the GPL. Any conflicts between the licenses are irrelevant. GPL compatibility only matters when combining works of different authors.
Yeah! Phones that are vulnerable to worms! What a feature! I'm so envious.
Bolt large heatsinks to both the inside and outside of one side of your lockbox (strip the paint off first). Install a fan inside blowing air over the heatsink. If possible install another fan outside blowing air over the outside heatsink, and if possible replace the steel between the heatsinks with aluminum. This technique is used in some military equipment.
Not merely "pretty active": fully supported. Look at http://www.debian.org/ports/sparc/ .
Seems like there is a need for a patent hall of shame, listing outrageous patents along with the names of the responsible examiners.
A really, really nasty virus payload: code that keeps turning Clippy back on.
SGI's goal here is probably not so much to stop the OP from using his trademark as to go on record as having taken note of his usage. If SGI ever actually sues for infringement of the mark the defendant will claim that it has fallen into the public domain and drag in every utterance that could by any stretch of the imagination be said to be similar. SGI would like to be able to show that they have dealt with these, and producing a letter "expressing concern" would do so. IMHO the proper response to a letter such as that received by the OP is a letter politely explaining why your usage does not infringe. In many cases you will never hear from them again. There is no need to panic until you receive a registered letter clearly threatening to sue, at which point you can either call your lawyer or just give them what they want.