Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-15 Thread lex
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Right, but that is circular reasoning. Why is this a bad thing, *IF IT > > IS A MINOR REQUIREMENT*? > > Because it is actually taking away rights. Still circular. How does this violate DFSG? > > I think you are talk

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-15 Thread Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to >> distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program >> binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a different >> l

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-13 Thread lex
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to > distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program > binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a different > license), and this license took tho

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-12 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > Since the contract does not give me obligations, you cannot > > enforce anything. But I can enforce it against you if you > > later say I am not licensed. > I think that is the key point. In common-law countries, both sides must > have obligat

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-12 Thread Nathanael Nerode
batist wrote: > It's a bit like the > contract of a gift. The only consideration in a gift is on the side of > the party imposing the contract. And don't worry, gifts are entirely > legal in civil law. Perhaps the correct statement is that free licenses must be gifts? :-) This corresponds with

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-12 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Lex Spoon wrote: >> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to >> the licensor, the license can't be free. > > Certainly it's a problem if the consideration is sending $1000 to the > author. However, DFSG1 says merely that you cannot charge a royalty or > fee; it doe

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-12 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to >> the licensor, the license can't be free. > > I think this is the crux of the matter. But -just thinking > aloud here- what if the consideration is "you promise to

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-12 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every* >> > software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the >> > dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Pr

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-02 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email, >> > receive email, and browse web pages. There may be no incremental cost >> > associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost. (Therefore >> > it's not free, so I do

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-01 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Jun 29, 2004, at 15:05, Lex Spoon wrote: More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose it says "you must email the author before distributing a modified version, provided that sending one email is free for you." This is certainly annoying, but it's very minor and it

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-07-01 Thread Lex Spoon
> > Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email, > > receive email, and browse web pages. There may be no incremental cost > > associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost. (Therefore > > it's not free, so I don't have to send one) > > True, but a licen

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-30 Thread Don Armstrong
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > For copyleft licenses, at least, the promise of future derivative > > works being released with source under similar terms could quite > > easily be argued to fulfill consideration. > > That's only rea

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-30 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Then the license is requiring me to form a (US-style) contract in > order to pass on the software, which is a non-free burden on me. For > example, a requirement that I get everyone to whom I give the software > to agree to some EULA is non-free: they aren't copying o

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-30 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to >> the licensor, the license can't be free. > > For copyleft licenses, at least, the promise of future derivative > works being re

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-30 Thread Josh Triplett
Joe Moore wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > >>Lex Spoon wrote: >> >>>Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to the licensor, the license can't be free. >> >>[...] >> >>>More interestingly, the consideration migh

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-30 Thread tom
<--- Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: < < Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com :-))-:

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-30 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> * A meeting of minds: the license issuer need never receive >> communication from the licensee, so how can there be meeting of the >> minds? > > That's an interesting requirement that is apparently different in > different countries; in some places, i

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-30 Thread Joe Moore
Josh Triplett wrote: > Lex Spoon wrote: >> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to >>> the licensor, the license can't be free. > [...] >> More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose >> it sa

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-30 Thread batist
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 21:16, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: I really do not see why these are a problem to have free licenses: > * A meeting of minds: the license issuer need never receive > communication from the licensee, so how can there be meeting of the > minds? already discussed properly.

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Josh Triplett
Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:32:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >>* It discriminates against people who cannot (or simply do not want to) >>identify themselves (unless they have some sort of method to send >>anonymous email). See also the "Dissident" test in the DFSG FAQ. >

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:32:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose it > > says "you must email the author before distributing a modified version, > > provided that sending one email is free for you." This is certainly > > annoyi

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Josh Triplett
Lex Spoon wrote: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to >> the licensor, the license can't be free. [...] > More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose it > says "you must email the author

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to > the licensor, the license can't be free. For copyleft licenses, at least, the promise of future derivative works being released with source under similar terms could quite e

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Lex Spoon
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In any case, in the US a contract has a few requirements inconsistent > with a free license: This, by the way, is the kind of thing that should be talked about. Still, I am not clear on why these things *must* be non-free. > * A meeting of minds

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > My response: I do not accept the license grant. Therefore, I > > have rejected your offer and so I am not bound to do anything > > in return. > > So if you say you want to give me your watch, and I say I want it, ca

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Lewis Jardine
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > Here, I send you this shell script I have written, which highlights > > 3com devices: 'cat /proc/pci | tr 3 \*'. I grant you a license to > > use, modify, and distribute it, and to dis

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread batist
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 19:11, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > If you ever see a license which suggests the death penalty, I do hope > you'll consider it non-free. The license can never suggest such thing (i believe so also in BR law - certainly belgian law), because the criminal part is enforced in s

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My response: I do not accept the license grant. Therefore, I > have rejected your offer and so I am not bound to do anything > in return. So if you say you want to give me your watch, and I say I want it, can you not accept my desire, and so reje

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > *And* I go to Criminal Court and denounce you for copyright > > infringement, and now we're talking *real* jail time and hefty fines > > That's criminal in Brasil? Not a tort? Wacky. So you don't get any > damages from

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Arnoud Engelfriet
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every* > > software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the > > dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs Law > > (9.609/98), to Co

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Patrick Herzig
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 16:28, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: snip > > Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every* > > software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the > > dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:28:10AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> If I issue a license as my example above, but appending "provided you >> wear yellow underpants," and then discover that you have distributed >> copies of the software without wearing

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > @ 29/06/2004 11:28 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen : > > >Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen : > >> > >> >A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that > >> >one had to a

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Raul Miller
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:28:10AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > If I issue a license as my example above, but appending "provided you > wear yellow underpants," and then discover that you have distributed > copies of the software without wearing yellow underpants, can I > enforce the contra

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Humberto Massa
@ 29/06/2004 11:28 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen : >Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen : >> >> >A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that >> >one had to accept the GPL in order to receive the licenses it >> >offers, be

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > @ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen : > > >A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that one > >had to accept the GPL in order to receive the licenses it offers, > >because it's a contract, and that it had to be a contract

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Humberto Massa
@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen : >A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that one >had to accept the GPL in order to receive the licenses it offers, >because it's a contract, and that it had to be a contract, because >one had to accept it to receive certain bene

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-29 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Yes, but that is a nitpick IMHO. What good is an offer that you never >> > plan to use? If you prefer, call the relevent clause of GPL to be an >> > offer of a contract, instead of being a contract its

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-28 Thread Raul Miller
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 03:03:06PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote: > That is not exactly my argument: I think you have to agree to a license > agreement before you gain the included license, and I also think a > license agreement can perfectly well make requirements on both parties > while still being a l

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-28 Thread Lex Spoon
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, but that is a nitpick IMHO. What good is an offer that you never > > plan to use? If you prefer, call the relevent clause of GPL to be an > > offer of a contract, instead of being a contract itself. It doesn't > > seem to change the essenc

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-28 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Textbook Example: in Scotland, if you advertise a reward for returning > your lost cellphone, you are contractually obligated to reward the > person returning the phone. If you refuse, they can take you to court > for this reward. (In this case, the phone is

Re: Contracts and licenses

2004-06-28 Thread Lewis Jardine
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: License agreements are not contracts -- even the GPL is not, since I have not offered or performed anything in exchange for receiving those licenses. In many jurisdictions (Scotland is one, Germany another (IIRC)), consideration is not necessary to form a contract

Contracts and licenses

2004-06-28 Thread Brian Thomas Sniffen
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Second, while acceptance alone does not obligate anything of you, some >> > obligations do kick in if you try to use some of the rights you have >> > been granted. For example, if you take the option to