On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:29:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> > What makes a restriction non-free is that it prevents some free
> > use of the software.
>
> There's little or no evidence that requiring creators of a derivative
> of some software to identify themselves woul
Raul Miller writes:
> On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
> > proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
>
> Nor do bad intentions make a restriction non-free.
>
> What ma
Hi!
I'm happy to join this list
Greetings to all!
Leonardo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raul Miller wrote:
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
A "question of law" is addressed by "likelihood of success on that
portion breach of contract claim that concerns its trademark"
Which question of law is are you talking about here? What do you
mean by "portio
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:56:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
> > proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
>
> Nor do bad intentions m
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are non-malicious reasons for releasing software under completely
> proprietary licenses. Good intentions don't make a restriction more free.
Nor do bad intentions make a restriction non-free.
What makes a restriction non-free is that
"Glenn L. McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can
> help straighten me out with this.
>
> I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed
> binaries that link to GPL incompatible libraries.
First of
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:35:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> We could, but does the DFSG require it?
This is backtracking the discussion: we've already been over this.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There are other, non-malicious
> reasons for choice-of-venue, as others have pointed out.
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> anything, is there some reason I should continue replying?
You can't read. Stop replying. Drop an email to Judge Saris telling
her that you can't read and asking her to phone you back.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What argument?
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
>
> Edwards has already explained it t
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The difference in cost to Adobe between bringing harrassment suits
> > against 200 mirror operators separately in their respective
> > jurisdictions, and bringing one suit against all two hundred in
> > Adob
Hey plonked Miller, breaking news...
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What argument?
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What argument?
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
Edwards has already explained it to you. A "question of law" is
addressed by "likelihood of success on th
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What argument?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00475.html
> > Plonk means "I'm putting this person in my kill file ...
> Obviously I didn't killfile you.
Ok.
When your words don't mean what we understand, we won't
under
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit? The difference
> > in cost to a corporation like Adobe with a standing legal team between
> > me suing them in their home court and me suing them in my home court
> > is
On 1/27/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Plonk doesn't mean "let's ignore the person's argument and then
What argument? Edwards has wasted enough time on you in the past and
you still don't grok a simple fact that IP licenses are contracts
which is not akin to lottery or other st
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins writes:
>> Yes, but (as you point out in your pine example) that can happen
>> regardless of license. There are some things we simply can't protect
>> against.
>
> Indeed, but we can refuse to make it easier for a malicious actor or
> mor
On 1/27/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hey plonked Miller, gratis copies also fall under the "first sale"
> > > (for which the trigger is nothing but ow
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit? The difference
> in cost to a corporation like Adobe with a standing legal team between
> me suing them in their home court and me suing them in my home court
> is negligible. The difference in cost
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > This is called the "tentacles of evil" test: the license must be free,
> > even if the copyright holder becomes hostile. Even if the copyright
> > holder has an upstanding legal reputation, the license can't depend on
> >
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The default rules of law are irrelevant to a license's freedom. A
> license with no choice of venue does not force you to go to New York
> to prosecute a lawsuit any more than it forces you to pet a cat or pay
> your traffic tickets.
In practice a nati
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:42:22AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>> On 1/26/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In a nutshell, this choice of venue discriminates against people
>> > who live far away from Santa Clara County, California, U
More pain to plonked Miller and other FSF's lackeys.
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to stress...
>
> On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/26/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTE
On 1/27/06, Glenn L. McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can
> help straighten me out with this.
Easy.
>
> I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed
> binaries that link to GPL incompatible libra
"Glenn L. McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if
> the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and
> library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible
> that the companies modifcations are "hiding
25 matches
Mail list logo
