Previously Michael Thayer wrote:
> Would it improve matters if I changed that to "make reasonable efforts to
> contact" and clarified the point about distributions?
No. Please check the vim license of the slink version (or later of
course), which has a similar clause in there. It was recently modi
Previously Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> You may not remember me. I was the tall dark haired guy wearing all grey
> at the LWE. I saw you at the debian booth, and I asked you who does law
> work for debian. You said that some law student said he would help on our
> mail list.
I actually do rememb
On 16 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Bruce Sass writes:
> > As a worst case scenario, a patent could be like a `revoke-on-a-whim'
> > clause in a license.
>
> But a patent isn't "in" a copyright license.
Huh, what does a copyright have to do with this discussion.
> Patent and copyright are
>
"J.H.M. Dassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl.html
Apple is claiming that this is an Open Source license. However, it is
not:
1. It has a termination clause similar to the IBM Secure Mailer
license. (I'm not sure that this is actually an Open
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes me:
> > - if IBM cannot then revoke the wold-be-free license it could end
> >up being stuck with giving people permission do distribute of
> >infringing software.
> they could do what the the gpl does:
Indeed. That's what I said in the rest of
Seen on /. :
:Several people followed up the today's earlier apple Open Source article by
:pointing us to Apple's Official Website on Open Source.
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/
:Features Yet Another License, the Apple Public Source License
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> - someday company B steps forward with an obscure algorithm patent
>that IBM unknowingly violated in their original source code.
> - if IBM cannot then revoke the wold-be-free license it could end
>up being stuck with giving people permissi
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is a patent a one way ticket into non-free?
Not necessarily.
Let's look at it from IBM's side. If we assume that the license author
at IBM is a nice guy, what he is fearing is clearly a scenario like
- someday company B steps forward with an obscure alg
Bruce Sass writes:
> As a worst case scenario, a patent could be like a `revoke-on-a-whim'
> clause in a license.
But a patent isn't "in" a copyright license. Patent and copyright are
orthogonal. Are you assuming that the patent owner and the author of a
work that implements that patent must be
Bruce Sass wrote:
> ...then the license of the patent code became non-free at some later
> date.
non-free. A Free License to "anything" can not be revoked ('cept maybe by
the licnesee violating the license and that would be on a
single-case-by-case basis). If a "free software" relied on a non-fre
On 15 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Bruce Sass writes:
> > How's this... What would happen if I was to have a free program depend
> > on patent code distributed with a free license,...
>
> This is difficult to answer because I don't know how to formulate a free
> license for a patent.
>
> > ...
Michael Thayer writes:
> Would it improve matters if I changed that to "make reasonable efforts to
> contact" and clarified the point about distributions?
Could you make it a request instead of a requirement? You will probably
get just as much compliance with a request, and that would make the li
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Michael Thayer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Would it improve matters if I changed that to "make reasonable efforts to
> contact" and clarified the point about distributions?
I'm afraid it won't be free until it's completely optional.
I'm recommend something like:
"The authors would
I'm really not sure - let's see what the other people on this list have to
say.
I did try to compile terroid recently - failed completly, but I'll be glad
to give it a more serious try once the copyright is worked out.
Michael Thayer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Would it improve matters if I changed that
Hello,
Would it improve matters if I changed that to "make reasonable efforts to
contact" and clarified the point about distributions?
Regards,
Michael
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> What if, 10 years from now, I want to put Terroid in JoeyLinux and sell it,
> and the Michael's have va
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 05:37:57PM -0800, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> Yeah! I am...
>
> You may not remember me. I was the tall dark haired guy wearing all grey
> at the LWE. I saw you at the debian booth, and I asked you who does law
> work for debian. You said that some law student said he wou
Yeah! I am...
You may not remember me. I was the tall dark haired guy wearing all grey
at the LWE. I saw you at the debian booth, and I asked you who does law
work for debian. You said that some law student said he would help on our
mail list.
That's me...
PEACE...
NatePuri
Certified Law
Previously Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> A derivative work is any copyrightable work based on another work such
> that the derivative can be said to be a transformation or adaptation of
> the first work. The annotations, editorializations, etc. taken as a whole
> constitute an original work of authors
OK... I read it...
Now I can follow along. Thanks for the info everyone!
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
& Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On 16 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Paul Nathan Puri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What is the
Paul Nathan Puri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the DFSG and where can I read it?
The Debian Free Software Guidelines: The set of rules that determine
which kinds of licenses Debian considers "free" enough to distribute
software under them. Pretty much required reading if one wishes to
par
Vaidhy writes:
> I am planning to right a book on Debian. If I read the Debian User's
> Manual and add it to the list of references, is my book a derivative ?
No.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Paul Nathan Puri writes:
> Where you say 'free licenses cannot be revoked': What is your authority
> for that statement?
I'm saying that in my opinion, revocable licenses are not free. My
"authority" is the DFSG and my understanding of what free software is. It
really isn't a question of law.
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
