Ben Finney wrote:
> "Suraj N. Kurapati" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This is an experimental license I have been playing around with. See
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg3.html
>
> Again, I exhort you: either choose an existing, well-understood free
> license for your s
"Suraj N. Kurapati" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is an experimental license I have been playing around with. See
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg3.html
Again, I exhort you: either choose an existing, well-understood free
license for your software, or (as a distant seco
Walter Landry wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> (2) In the last sentence, does the phrase "must reflect all
>>> modifications" mean that all past, present, and future
>>> modifications must also be included?
>>>
>>> I think that includi
Hello *,
Am 2007-04-24 08:38:34, schrieb Bas Zoetekouw:
> How can it be illegal to distribute? Ebay User Agreements are not law
> and Debian is not bound to it.
You can get the specification of the eBay-API from the Website for free
and can create FREELY a lib which allo you to access the eBay
MJ Ray wrote:
> Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (1) The last sentence is necessary (i.e. does the word
>> "corresponding" in the first sentence imply the last sentence?).
>
> What software is this for?
This is an experimental license I have been playing around with. See
http://lis
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (1) The last sentence is necessary (i.e. does the word
> > "corresponding" in the first sentence imply the last sentence?).
>
> What software is this for?
>
> I think the last sentence is necessary if it clarifie
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:43:26PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2007-04-18 03:39:58, schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > Er, businesses selling t-shirts using the official debian logo is *not*
> > permitted. Currently, the manner in which this is being disallowed is
> > suboptimal, but it's still n
Hello Steve and *,
Am 2007-04-18 03:39:58, schrieb Steve Langasek:
> Er, businesses selling t-shirts using the official debian logo is *not*
> permitted. Currently, the manner in which this is being disallowed is
> suboptimal, but it's still not something that we *permit*. (Perhaps what
> you're
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Considering the number of sniping software packages out there
> eBay doesn't seem to be very interested in pursuing these
> packages.
Indeed, they could've stopped sniping quite easily, if they wanted to.
Although I'm not sure if it could be considered a valid legal
ar
Sami Liedes wrote:
> If (and that's a big if) that argumentation is valid, indeed there is
> no legal use for the software, and I think that probably would weigh
> quite a bit in court. Though I admit I don't even know if there's such
> a thing as contributory infringement of a contract, it sounds
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:13 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The context of that statement is the GPL as a license, not as a
> work. The license, applied to another work, is free.
>
> The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
> work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surel
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 10:17:22AM +0100, Dima Barsky wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer either, but if we start talking about contributory
> infringement, shouldn't we remove all P2P clients from Debian as well?
> There is a much stronger case for contributory infringement there..
I'm not convinced. Signi
Suraj N. Kurapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) The last sentence is necessary (i.e. does the word
> "corresponding" in the first sentence imply the last sentence?).
What software is this for?
I think the last sentence is necessary if it clarifies the meaning
of corresponding.
> (2) In the la
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 Sami Liedes wrote:
> Well, I don't know the law too well, that's why I asked you (and if
> you feel it's legal, I'm happy about that). But some kind of
> contributory infringement came to my mind, ...
I'm not a lawyer either, but if we start talking about contributory
infring
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:44:30 +0200, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
Easy. DFSG §3 talks about the software, and a license is not software -
neither so
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The meta-license of the GPL is part of the text of the GPL. The DFSG
> doesn't say: only part of the GPL is considered "free". It says that
> the GPL, as a whole, including the meta-license, is considered
> "free".
The context of that statement is th
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 08:28 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed
> out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for
> a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free,
> because they do not have those same
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:55:15AM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
> I'd say it's rather obvious that there is a contract between the
> seller and eBay, but that's just my view) is no legal use for this
> program.
Sorry, I meant the bidder and eBay. But now that's not as evident any
more, I think. Whate
18 matches
Mail list logo
