begin Craig Sanders quotation:
> for fun (and the chance to win an all expenses paid vacation to a
> maximum security cell block), the script could sign the
> notificiation message as "Mr T. Errorist, Libya" :-)
I pity da foo'.
--
You are not entitled to your opinions.
0123456
Scripsit Bob McElrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, the argument from a legal standpoint is all fine and dandy, but
> the fact of the matter is that I ABSOLUTELY do not want to go to court,
> for any reason.
Suicide is the only option that guarantees this.
Nothing you write in licenses can prevent
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > But in order for it to have any legal validity, you do need to have a
> > little click-here-to-agree thing before the user uses the program.
>
> How can that make any difference? Assuming that we are talking about
It doesn't. Click-through
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > But in order for it to have any legal validity, you do need to have a
> > little click-here-to-agree thing before the user uses the program.
> How can that make any difference? Assuming that we are talking about
> law of contract here, how c
> But in order for it to have any legal validity, you do need to have a
> little click-here-to-agree thing before the user uses the program.
How can that make any difference? Assuming that we are talking about
law of contract here, how can clicking on a button in the privacy of
your own home can
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 10:01:39AM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> Well, ignoring the legality of the license (I know of no case where an
> EULA was challenged in court, and I know of no case where the GPL was
> challenged in court). I agree EULA's should be unenforcable according
> to contract law,
Bob McElrath said:
> Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well, the argument from a legal standpoint is all fine and dandy, but
> the fact of the matter is that I ABSOLUTELY do not want to go to court,
> for any reason. Court battles are really suited to big corporations
> duking it out. T
Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So...I've decided to remove the usage restrictions, and just put a
> > little rant in the README about it instead. However, there is another
> > more important reason that I wrote that license, that must be addressed
> > first.
> >
> > I need to ensure th
Bob McElrath said:
> Sam TH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 01:35:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I do not think Debian should be making assessments of the legality of
> other people's licenses, unless it wants to hire teams of lawyers to
> pour through them. Is anyone p
Scripsit Bob McElrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sam TH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This brings up an interesting question: is FilterProxy really
> > non-free? Since the non-free portions of its license are legally
> > irrelevant, do they still make it non-free?
> I do not think Debian should be mak
Sam TH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 01:35:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> >
> > So am I. I'm actually quite concerned by the possibility that the
> > GPL may allow usage restrictions to be added by others, I think it
> > would be a serious bug in the GPL if it's true.
Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > And you've hit the nail on the head...I'm trying to separate the usage
> > license (LICENSE) from the copying license (COPYING = GPL), which one
> > ought to be able to do. Am I the first to try this?
> >
> > > It's probably possible to contract out of th
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 06:59:28AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> There are fundamentally two kinds of licenses applied to software
> today, and they are really very different. In fact, they really aren't
> in the same category at all.
> The first kind is the kind we know well, such as the GPL. [...]
> T
> Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:49:59PM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> > > Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:37:40PM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> > > > GPL section 6, when talking about distributing the program, says
>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 06:59:28AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> On the relevant new laws: the DMCA has no bearing on this sort of
> thing at all. It isn't really even a copyright law, despite being in
> section 17. But if you want to hear people rant about that, there are
> plenty of other places. Wi
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 01:35:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> So am I. I'm actually quite concerned by the possibility that the
> GPL may allow usage restrictions to be added by others, I think it
> would be a serious bug in the GPL if it's true. That's why I'm
> exploring every detail.
(Note to readers: We are discussing specifically what happens if
Bob McElrath includes GPL'd code from another source in FilterProxy,
and we are both aware that he does not currently do this. I'm
including this note because I found myself explaining the situation
in every paragraph for fear of bei
17 matches
Mail list logo
