MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-06-25 17:00:42 +0100 Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [...] what we are usually talking about on debian-legal
>> are the agreements, not the licenses granted in those agreements.
>
> Maybe this is indicative of a general topic drift in this lis
Lex Spoon wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
>> > must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that
>> > you perform in some way, e.g. by distributing source code.
>>
>> Actually, as far
On 2004-06-25 17:00:42 +0100 Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] what we are usually talking about on debian-legal
are the agreements, not the licenses granted in those agreements.
Maybe this is indicative of a general topic drift in this list?
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 distribute
> > binaries of modifications and
On 2004-06-24 23:42:30 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
First, the GPL states explicitly [...]
It does not say that. Your first premise begs the question of whether
this is a contract. This argument is fallacious. [...]
Does any
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
>> > must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that you
>> > perform in some way, e.g. by distributing source code.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:16:51 -0400 Lex Spoon wrote:
> First, the GPL states explicitly that you must "accept" the terms or
> that you do not get permission to do anything with the code. Should
> we argue with a statement that the text says itself?
Wait, quoting from GPL#0:
| Activities other t
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
> > must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that you
> > perform in some way, e.g. by distributing source code.
>
> Actually, as far as I can tell, they don'
On 2004-06-11 22:48:23 +0100 Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am wondering this as well. It might actually be legally
*preferable*
to have a license where choice of venue is specified, because
otherwise
one needs to be prepared to face suits in all kinds of places.
Are any others than
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Almost all free licenses are not contracts. I cannot think of any
>> Free license which *is* a contract, but there might, I suppose, be one
>> out there. Given American law requires an exchange, I can't see how.
>
> What do you mean? In order to gain t
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040613 13:16]:
Not true at all. The GPL, for example, is not a valid contract.
Neither is the MIT/X11 license.
Please abstract from your own legal system. In some legal systems, the
GPL or the MIT/X11 license is a contract, in oth
Edmund wrote:
> Hasn't this been rebutted by people pointing out that many or most
> free software licences don't include any patent licence at all, so
> including a restricted patent licence is hardly any worse?
The FSF claims free licenses like the GPL carry an implied patent license. This
is
Mahesh wrote:
> Something wrong here??
>
> I do a apt-cache show firebird-c64-server here, and get this :-
[snip]
> enhancing a multi-platform relational database management system based
> on the source code released by Inprise Corp (now known as Borland
> Software Corp) under the InterBas
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040613 13:16]:
> Well, it really depends on the legal system you are in. What you told
> seems to be true for the US. However, for example in Germany (and in
> the other countries using Roman Right) of course the GPL and the MPL
> are contracts. No doubt about t
* Brian Thomas Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040612 04:55]:
> "Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see
> >> that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a publi
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus,
>> while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It
>> is always beneficial to receive software under a free license
Lex Spoon wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip*
>> Almost all free licenses are not contracts. I cannot think of any
>> Free license which *is* a contract, but there might, I suppose, be one
>> out there. Given American law requires an exchange, I can't see how.
>
> Wh
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'm pretty sure though,
> that absent a decision from a higher court, a court can choose to hear any
> case it wants to -- if that court decides to hear your case, either you
> appear or you're toast. Different courts just have different rules about
> what constitutes a va
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are exceptionally confused. A contract is a legal agreement, with
> specific requirements -- typically agreement, compensation, and a few
> less famous ones.
>
> A license is a grant of permission. Much like a title or deed, a
> license may b
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus,
> while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It
> is always beneficial to receive software under a free license.
I disagree; obtaining software under a DFSG
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:48PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Jim Marhaus said on Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +,:
>
> > 1. Firebird Database
> >
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/firebird/firebird_1.0.2-2.1/copyright
>
> Something wrong here??
>
Interbase Public
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 01:23:37PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms
> of the GNU General Public License (the "GPL"), in which case the
> provisions of GPL are applicable instead of those above. If you wish
> to allow use
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> The consensus from debian-legal archives and current discussion seems to be
> the
> MPL is non-free. Below is a summary of reasons, compiled from commentary on
> the
> MPL and the similar Nokia license reviewed last Augu
Lex Spoon said on Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:43:31PM -0400,:
> A license text is simply a proposed contract,
Right and wrong.
A document allowing your neighbout over your property is a
contract. The law relating to immoveable property (real property)
calls it a license. Its validi
You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus,
while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It
is always beneficial to receive software under a free license.
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see
>> that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public
>> licence quite a lot of legal work has to be done in order to
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:48:23PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
> > I am wondering this as well. It might actually be legally *preferable*
> > to have a license where choice of venue is specified, because otherwise
> > one needs to be prepared to face suits i
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:48:23PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know much about the US legal system. How different is this
> > from the ordinary default situation? If I were "a citizen of, or an
> > entity chartered or registered to do busine
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Jim Marhaus said on Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +,:
> 1. Firebird Database
>
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/firebird/firebird_1.0.2-2.1/copyright
Something wrong here??
I do a apt-cache show firebird-c64-server here, and get this :-
(with s
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know much about the US legal system. How different is this
> from the ordinary default situation? If I were "a citizen of, or an
> entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of
> America" would I normally be able to s
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see
> that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public
> licence quite a lot of legal work has to be done in order to show that
> the licence has anything to do wit
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would imagine that the plaintiff would argue in their local court that the
> clause was enforceable, and the defendant would argue in their local court
> that it wasn't. If both won in their respective juristictions, you would
> appeal the decisions to
Jim Marhaus said on Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +,:
> 1. Firebird Database
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/firebird/firebird_1.0.2-2.1/copyright
Something wrong here??
I do a apt-cache show firebird-c64-server here, and get this :-
(with several snips)
Package: fi
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Yes, but you could then tell them and the court that they had to move the
> > > suit to where you lived. With this clause, you couldn't (unless the
> > > clause
> > > was ruled to be unenforcable).
> >
> > This is circular. A court has to decide from th
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:20:54PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Yes, but you could then tell them and the court that they had to move the
> > suit to where you lived. With this clause, you couldn't (unless the clause
> > was ruled to be unenforcabl
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:20:54PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > If the court is willing to take the licensor's word for
> > > it, then couldn't the licensor sue me in Santa Clara even if I had
> > > never had anything to do with the software?
> >
> > Yes, but you could then tell them
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Also, could someone explain how this sort of condition would work in
> > practice? Suppose I'm the licensee. The licensor would go to court in
> > Santa Clara County and say what, exactly? I haven't signed anything,
> > so how would the licensor convince t
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Jim Marhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> | With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen
>> | of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the
>> | United States of America, any litigation relating to this License
>> |
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> I don't know much about the US legal system. How different is this
> from the ordinary default situation? If I were "a citizen of, or an
> entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of
> America" would I normally be able to safely ignore cases b
Jim Marhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I don't really want to defend the MPL, but ...
> | 2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
> | [...]
> | (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is
> | granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2)
> |
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> 2. It requires distributors to retroactively notify recipients about
> third-party
> legal problems with the software (Dissident test).
Lousy description. Both this, and the dissident test failure, are
problems, but they aren't the sa
Hi all -
The consensus from debian-legal archives and current discussion seems to be the
MPL is non-free. Below is a summary of reasons, compiled from commentary on the
MPL and the similar Nokia license reviewed last August.
By the way, the following software is apparently licensed under the MPL
42 matches
Mail list logo
