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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
> > 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
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
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
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
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
<--- Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<
<
Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com
:-))-:
"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
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
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.
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.
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@ 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
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
@ 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
"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
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
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
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
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
"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
43 matches
Mail list logo