Yes, but in the _Salinger_ case, these were unpublished letters that
Salinger wished to prevent from being published. Usenet posts and public
mailing list posts are the very definition of published, widely disseminated
works. Thus I would distinguish _Salinger_ from _Cohen_, which seems more
appl
Clause 5. fails DFSG 5. (discrimination against persons), clause 8. is a
noxious termination clause (but not specifically DFSG-unfree, see e.g.
Apple's "open" license), and clause 9. is an even more noxious choice of law
clause (Virginia == UCITA == blech). I'd recommend somebody undertake a
"clea
If you look under
http://lxr.linux.no/blurb.html
I believe your question is resolved.
quote:
Availiablility [sic]
The sourcecode for the LXR engine is of course availiable. It is released
under the GNU Copyleft license.
--
Eric R. Sherrill, WF Software Systems Engineer
Texas Instruments HFAB1
IMHO the problems with legality clauses in contracts can be summarized in
several points:
(Disclaimer - this isn't legal advice, get yer own durn lawyer, yadda yadda
yadda. See below.)
1. Not all countries adhere to the common law (mostly just the UK & its
former colonies, like US, Canada, Austra
I would tend to agree that the MS patent is fairly limited on its face,
although I am not speaking as an attorney (due to my inactive Texas bar
card, retired status, darn near zero patent experience, and so forth). I am
also not speaking for my current employer TI (which seems regrettably more &
m
re, &/or don't have any contact info, how could you
ever submit patches?).
-Eric
-Original Message-
From: Remco Blaakmeer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:12 PM
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: AT&T source code agreement
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Gr
But it at least
explains why they thought of it.
-Eric
-Original Message-
From: Eric Sherrill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:28 PM
To: Elie Rosenblum; Stephen C. North; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: RE: AT&T source cod
Stephen:
In my informal opinion, a license closely following the DFSG obviates the
need for any "reciprocality" or "notice" clauses respecting code
modification, such as ATT License Sec. 4.2. Here's my reasoning. If
hackers distribute patched versions of a DFSG-compliant code base, then they
mus
8 matches
Mail list logo
