Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down
> > Debian immediately.
>
> Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible
> license violation.
For "possible",
Lewis Jardine wrote:
[snip]
> As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
> 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
> copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright infringement.
>
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down
> Debian immediately.
Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible
license violation.
--
Glenn Maynard
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
>
> How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting
> themselves at legal risk.
If you want to avoid every imagin
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting
themselves at legal risk.
This isn't a matter of a "stance"; this is a matter of trying to
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
> > of kernel stuff.
>
> Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
> terms of thos
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
> of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
terms of those who are.
> >From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel
[I'm not subcribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a
> > collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least
> > I tend to prefer the author's opin
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a
> collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least
> I tend to prefer the author's opinion over third-party interpretations.
The author's opinion
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the
> Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of
> converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major media[3]
> and proprietary so
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 07:14:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:55AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > "Forgent Networks said Friday it sued 31 major hardware and software
> > vendors, including Dell and Apple Computers, for allegedly infringing
> > on its cl
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:28:59AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 2) None of the proponents of this position came up with good
> reasons why the freedoms we consider so important for software
> don't apply to documentation.
That's easy.
So we can ship more shit in main
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 02:32:05AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
> > every document non-free or only those that include invariant
> > sections.
>
> Personally, I think the GNU FDL
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
> > which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern ---
> > to be un
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:29:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> To veer off the subject a little, we don't like licenses which engage
> in too much contract-like behavior, because they're usually non-free.
> In particular, any license which requires that you agree to it in
> order to *use* it -
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 10:25:17PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 06:26:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > The QPL doesn't prevent forking, but the requirement to distribute
> > changes to the original source as patches makes a fork significantly
> > more difficult. This r
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:38:33PM -0400, Steven Augart wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:51:05PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> >>Joshua Tacoma said on Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:58:34AM -0400,:
> >>
> >>> I am looking at packaging the Swiss Ephemeris:
> [...]
> >>This iss
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > However, I do agree that it's not necessary to fight this battle right
> > now, as the OSL 2.0 is defective in other, less controversial, respects.
>
> I think it's not controversial that the OSL "software patent" clause is
> ov
Milan Zamazal wrote:
"HM" == Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HM> 2. restricts redistribution (in a DRM'd medium): DFSG#1
DFSG#1:
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
@ 27/04/2004 18:47 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I do know Dutch law, and under Dutch law a choice of law is
certainly respected in contracts, unless it's clearly totally
inappropriate.
And there has been quite some European caselaw that acknowledges the
possibility.
Here, the only law that c
Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:38:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's
likely that the issue will become moot.
>>>
>
I will try again, before going home.
@ 27/04/2004 18:03 : wrote Milan Zamazal :
"HM" == Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HM> man, have you *read* the thing?
Yes.
HM> Ok, I'll try to summarize the summary :-) ::
I asked for a particular DFSG term which is viol
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> DFSG#1:
>
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
> software distribution containing programs from several different
>
Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
> >I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
> >clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
> >the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
> >
> >
> I don't believe this for a moment. Not in
> "HM" == Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HM> man, have you *read* the thing?
Yes.
HM> Ok, I'll try to summarize the summary :-) ::
I asked for a particular DFSG term which is violated and explanation of
the violation.
HM> Section 2 (VERBATIM COPYING):
HM> 1.
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:38:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's
>> > likely that the issue will become moot.
>>
>> One patent in
@ 27/04/2004 11:31 : wrote Milan Zamazal :
"PO" == Per Olofsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PO> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There seems to be
>> some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
@ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
I don't believe this for a moment. Not in the US, and most certainly not
in Br
Auto-Responder ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-
Thank you for your mail!
I will be out of the office from the 21 April till 1 May, I
will answer you as soon as i return.
Best regards,
Rodolphe
-
Visit our webpage
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:38:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Their patent expires *really* soon, like, a few months away. It's
> > likely that the issue will become moot.
>
> One patent in their portfolio expires between 2007 and 2014.
Rando
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> Unfortunately, the draft position statement doesn't explain, which
> section of DFSG is violated in such a case and why.
It actually does, for every single instance where -legal located a
problem.
Scroll down, and read carefully. [Or search for DFSG.]
> "PO" == Per Olofsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PO> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There seems to be
>> some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
>> > every document non-free or only those that
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
> which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern ---
> to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other
> softwar
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This license is governed by the Laws of the Netherlands. Disputes shall
> > be settled by Amsterdam City Court."
>
> > I'm not particularly familiar with these clauses, but isn't the second
> > sentence a choice of venue? It
On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
clauses?
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
which seems to be widel
On Apr 26, 2004, at 20:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
every document non-free or only those that include invariant
sections.
Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free docum
On Apr 26, 2004, at 18:41, Florian Weimer wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is JPEG any different than GIF was
I don't remember that anyone was actually sued for using the LZW
compression algorithm (certainly not a company rather close to
Debian). Maybe the case was so c
38 matches
Mail list logo
