On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 05:54:34PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want
> > (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to
> > enter the scene.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> >>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
> >>
> >>
> >Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
> >
> >
> The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does ma
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
http://wiki.debian.net/?DissidentTest
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.ht
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
>[clause 3.3 goes on]
>> You may not
>> remove or alter any copyright, patent or trademark notices
>> contained within the Covered So
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:48:54 +0300 Henri Sivonen wrote:
> MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free, right?
DFSG-free? The MPL?
I wouldn't say so, based on what I recall... :-(
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
.
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:17:06 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
> I think we need to consider the point
> that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause
> may be important for a program author to successfully defend their
> copyright. If the justification for this is to be grounded in
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
> > > Dissident problem here. Anonymous contributions should be allowed.
> >
> > I disagree on this point, This is need
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:57:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 10, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
> > > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
> > > apparent ill effect on
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star
> > is
> > weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug.
> While it is obviously true that the
On Sep 10, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not "now". Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
> > distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
> > apparent ill effect on users.
> Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has
On Saturday 10 September 2005 18:54, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you
> > want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane
> > cases' to enter the scene... all o
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:28:46 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > The discussions on
> > CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.
>
> Let's do something about this.
OK, let's try! :)
COMMON DEVELOPMENT AN
On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> > it's up to you explaining why.
> here they are:
So finally we are up to the good old "every restriction is a
discrimination" argument. Even if in the last two years it
On Sep 09, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want
> (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to
> enter the scene... all over the world.
Not "now". Debian (and I think every other dis
Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:56:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> John Hasler writes:
>> > Henning Makholm writes:
>> >> A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
>> >> bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of th
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Notice that the CDDL says :
> with the losing party responsible for costs, including, without limitation,
> court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses
> how does that modify our acceptance of the choice-of-venue ?
I don't think it does
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Especially as the CDDL mentions that the loosing side has to pay the
> expenses. This leaves only the need to advance the money,
Aren't you assuming here that the loser has money to pay with?
--
Henning Makholm "I Guds Faders namn, och So
On 9/10/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 9/9/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Please use a non-broken mail program.
> > Anyways, please say what you mean in a fashion that carries
> > useful informat
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Would it be out of place to ask what code, exactly, is involved?
Not at all, no. As the licensing state of the tree is determined by a
script, and because I haven't run it in the past few weeks, I can't tell
you exactly offhand. I will attempt to take up the well-wo
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 9/9/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please use a non-broken mail program.
> Anyways, please say what you mean in a fashion that carries
> useful information.
Thank you Mr. Pedant. If you'll examine the grandparent m
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:52:07PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005, John Hasler wrote:
Gunnar Wolf writes:
...Or get him extradited somehow.
Extradition has nothing to do with civil lawsuits.
Hey, copyright infringement is a crime these days...
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and
> >> every Contributor for any liability incurred by the
> >> Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of
> >> warranty, support, indemnity or
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Nothing paricularly non-free seeming about that. Heck it means that moving
> code between subsideriaries is not distribution, which could be helpful to
> some companies.
> So I think this clause is a non-issue.
Thanks to all for the explanations. I
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please use a non-broken mail program.
Quoting mutt's documentation "all mail clients suck".
A corollary is that all mail clients can be considered broken, in
some fashion.
A corollary to that (and something of a truism in the context of
all
On 9/9/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric.
Given the context, I haven't a clue what that means. This could be anywhere
from begging the question to a desire to focus on some useful 10% of
my questions.
> Assume every work el
On 9/10/05, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
> > regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
> > currently claim.
>
> I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not tr
I will be on business trip during Sept 6-11. Should you need any immediate
assistance, please kindly contact
Carol Cheng, at [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 852-2961 2586; or
ring my mobile at (852) 9650 0518 / (86) 13143905977.
Thank you for the email.
Manna Ma
TTG Asia Media Pte Ltd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 9/9/05, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I find that Nokia is selling phones that infringe my copyright by
> violating the terms of the license on my software I should not have to fly
> to Finland to sue them. Fortunately, I do not, even in the absence of a
> choice of venue clause.
Steve Langasek wrote:
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
currently claim.
I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not true. In my copious
spare time, I'm attempting to complete the Mozilla
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I
> think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't
> enforce?
A licence can communicate your wishes to others clearly and
it's a sort of promise to your collabor
Choice of venue is a practical problem because it limits
the number of people who can understand the full meaning of
a licence, including the local wrinkles of its venue. I say
there's potential for an effective fee in some cases, but I
don't know the courts of (say) Santa Clara well enough to
know
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:27:08AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And remember that in many jurisdictions, it's also possible to sue for
> legal expenses under various circumstances. That means that the net
> (monetary) cost to a copyright holder for defending his copyright is
> potentially zero.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:48:12PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > Sorry, this sentence registers as complete nonsense to me. If you're
> > going to claim that requiring certain things of *authors* before their
> > code can be included in Debian is a "fee", how is this particular "fee"
> > differe
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:55:24PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Not really interested in the case where you actually did infringe on
> > the license. I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about whether we
> > discriminate agains
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Part of the issue with the existing framework of personal jurisdiction is
> that we don't seem to have a clear idea what it actually is. I haven't seen
> any links to documents explaining how jurisdiction is actually determined
> in real life ca
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:48:12PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > If the justification for this is to be grounded in the discrimination
> > > clause of the DFSG, we can't choose to discriminate against the
> > > program's authors.
> > Even if we accept this argument, how is putting the authors
36 matches
Mail list logo
