On 18 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Jules Bean writes:
>
> > You don't think licenses are enforceable on minors. I find that hard to
> > believe.
>
> A free software license grants rights beyond those permitted to the owner
> of a copy by copyright law. If a free license is a contract and a m
Jules Bean writes:
> There is a license.
> I quote from the book in my hands
> "Copyright (c) 1997,1996 O'Reilly and Associates, Inc. All rights
> reserved."
That is not a license. A license grants rights. That grants none. It is
just a copyright notice. You would have exactly the same righ
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, you don't know the answer here, and neither do I. You don't think
> licenses are enforceable on minors. I find that hard to believe. I
> suggest we wait until someone else comes along who can clear this up.
IANAL, so this possibly doesn't qualify a
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You could say I'm wondering if there is anything inherent in a patent
> holders rights that puts a limit on just how free a patent algorithm can
> be with respect to licensing.
There isn't. However, at some point it becomes pointless to uphold a
patent. Co
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Say that IBM released their code under GPL in the above scenario.
> > Company B might still go to court, and they might succesfully argue
> > that their patent is valid and applies to the program. However, in the
> > same moment the judge decides this, >p
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On 16 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Clause 7 of the GPL simply states that the right to make copies
> > of the covered program does not apply if there's a patent which
> > applies to the code and whose owner contests the free distribution
> > of the
On 16 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is a patent a one way ticket into non-free?
> Not necessarily.
<...>
> However, this kind of revocation clause is not the only way around
> the unknown-patent problem. I like the way the GPL handles the
> situation
On 16 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Bruce Sass writes:
> > Hmmm, you seem to see "license" and automatically think "copyright".
> No. I just couldn't see any point unless I assumed you were discussing the
> interaction of a patent and the copyright on a work that implements it.
Ok
> > The confl
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:36:57PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > > AFAIK, minors aren't allowed to violate a copyright any more than any
> > > > one
> > > > else. It would be nice to hear a lawyer on this, though.
> > >
> > > Minors can not legally b
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:36:57PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > AFAIK, minors aren't allowed to violate a copyright any more than any one
> > > else. It would be nice to hear a lawyer on this, though.
> >
> > Minors can not legally be held to contracts in the US, however in the
> > real world y
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:12:22PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> > There's a big difference between a contract, and a license. (Well, maybe
> > it's a pretty small difference, actually...).
>
> Au contraire, there is NO difference. A License to use Copyr
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:12:22PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> There's a big difference between a contract, and a license. (Well, maybe
> it's a pretty small difference, actually...).
Au contraire, there is NO difference. A License to use Copyrighted
material is in fact a contract.
> Are you sa
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Mar 19, Ron wrote:
> > I quote:
> > "... In any event, you must be of majority age and otherwise competent
> > to enter into contracts to accept this license."
> >
> > Sorry kids.. you may be old enough to write your own OS, but you'll
> > need a n
Santiago Vila writes:
> The question: Does this license still allow reusability of code?
Yes.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Bdale Garbee quotes:
> The DNSsafe software cannot be used or distributed separately from the
> BIND software. You only have the right to use it or distribute it as a
> bundled, integrated product.
Non-free. DFSG section 3.
> The DNSsafe software can ONLY be used to provide authentication for
Bdale Garbee writes:
> I fail to see how this restricts distribution of modified versions of
> BIND in any way.
Among other things, it forbids distribution of versions of BIND that have
been modified by having all the DNS stuff removed and replaced with
something else entirely.
> But again, I don
Jens Ritter writes:
> But what strikes me more is that it allows copying, distribution, etc,
> "solely for Your internal research and development," (2.1).
> And they fail to define it. What do You think?
They have merely chosen a particulary verbose and awkward way to say that
you don't have comp
17 matches
Mail list logo
