Technically, the U.S. is in a state of emergency. That gives the
President the right to control the export of munitions. Cryptographic
software is classified as munitions.
Note: it's not classified as the >>design<< for munitions it's classified
as >>munitions<<.
So, if CFS was exported from th
- Message from Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 01:31:26AM +1000, Chris Leishman wrote:
> Also - in my research of the program it came to my notice that this code
> should never have been released from the US (it was developed there). Now
> that is out of the U
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never even suggested that the GPL isn't viable. But even viable
> or excellent licenses may have flaws that other licences address. And
> the nature and likelihood of legal threats varies over time.
Sure, but if there's some reason that apple's dra
According to Raul Miller:
> Frankly, if the GPL isn't a viable example of a free software
> license then there are no viable examples of a free software
> license, and we might as well not pursue this discussion.
I've never even suggested that the GPL isn't viable. But even viable
or excellent li
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you have a lawyer's professional opinion on that approach?
I should also note that I don't buy into the idea that law is beyond the
understanding of an intelligent person. If someone makes a statement
about the way a court is likely to decide ther
> According to Raul Miller:
> > > > > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > > > > reasonable claims.
> > > > > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > > > > or that it will make a judgment.
> > > > > > [3] There
According to Raul Miller:
> > > > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > > > reasonable claims.
> > > > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > > > or that it will make a judgment.
> > > > > [3] There is no
> > > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > > reasonable claims.
> > > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > > or that it will make a judgment.
> > > > [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will eve
Package: ilu-base
Version: 2.0.0.12-5
Severity: wishlist
[ I'm not on debian-legal, so please cc me if I need to be involved.
The original message was also cc'ed to bugs and Matthias Klose
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> too. You don't see that because I goofed and sent
it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which b
According to Raul Miller:
> > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > reasonable claims.
> > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > or that it will make a judgment.
> > > [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will ever
> > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > reasonable claims.
> > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > or that it will make a judgment.
> > [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will ever lift the
> > suspe
Zygo Blaxell writes:
> There's a giant hole in this.
Most homebrew free software licenses don't do what the authors think they
do. As long as they are free I don't worry about it. I see no need to
point out to authors that their work is being protected from exploitation
by evil profiteering corp
According to Ben Pfaff:
> Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ben:
> > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > reasonable claims.
> > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > or that it will make a judgment.
>
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
According to Ben Pfaff:
> Maybe you think that the last clause in that paragraph, ``If Apple
> suspends Your rights... nothing in this License shall be construed to
> restrict You... from replacing the Affected Original Code...'', means
>
According to Ben Pfaff:
> Maybe you think that the last clause in that paragraph, ``If Apple
> suspends Your rights... nothing in this License shall be construed to
> restrict You... from replacing the Affected Original Code...'', means
> that you have some additional rights.
No, I don't think tha
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
According to John Hasler:
> This is improved, but it still allows revocation on the basis of a
> mere allegation of infringement. I could send a letter to Apple
> claiming that the Original Code infringes the copyright on the term
> paper
According to John Hasler:
> This is improved, but it still allows revocation on the basis of a
> mere allegation of infringement. I could send a letter to Apple
> claiming that the Original Code infringes the copyright on the term
> paper I wrote for Anthro 101 in 1967 and it would be grounds for
Henning Makholm writes:
> Are anyone resending these comments to the OSI mailing list mentioned?
I'm not, but feel free to forward mine.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Henning writes:
> I thought that the Artistic was let in by the fact that if I sell a copy
> of perl I get to decide myself if the price I take is fair enough to be
> allowed by the licence?
I believe that this was not understood when the DFSG was written.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John H
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Anthony Fok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>- Forwarded message from Daniel TAUPIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:23:54 -0700
>From: Daniel TAUPIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Anthony Fok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[Daniel Taupin:]
>> > Exact: MusiXT
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > Hm, double-cheching with the DFSG, it seems that this restriction *is*
> > actually considered free. Is this intentional?
> It's there to let the Artistic in.
I thought that the Artistic was let in by the fact that if I sell a
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Pfaff writes:
> > The URL to the APSL 1.1 is at
> > http://publicsource.apple.com/apsl/
> > Still not acceptable:
> > [revocation clause]
> I agree.
Are anyone resending these comments to the OSI mailing list mentioned?
--
Henning Makholm
Ben Pfaff writes:
> The URL to the APSL 1.1 is at
> http://publicsource.apple.com/apsl/
> Still not acceptable:
> [revocation clause]
I agree. This is improved, but it still allows revocation on the basis of
a mere allegation of infringement. I could send a letter to Apple claiming
that the Or
23 matches
Mail list logo
