On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:10:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Can you show me another DSFG-free licence that terminates depending on
> > > action taken not involving the covered work?
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:11:27AM -0500, Br
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Can you show me another DSFG-free licence that terminates depending on
> > action taken not involving the covered work?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:11:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am tempted to regard Raul's failure to rebut
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 07:48:13PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On May 17, 2004, at 19:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> >IIRC, jury trials are only a Constitutional right where *criminal*
> >proceedings are concerned, not for civil suits.
>
> Amendment VII
>
> In suits at common law, where t
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:45:40PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Gah. I really have to read more carefully. I read the license again,
> and it says that you have to sue a Contributor or sue about a patent
> related to the Program. So if SCO had distributed stuff under the IBM
> CPL,
They may ve
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-14 10:50:26 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other
> >>software.
> >That might make it incomp
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:18:17PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
> > > "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting
> > > litigation."
> > >
>
On May 17, 2004, at 19:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
IIRC, jury trials are only a Constitutional right where *criminal*
proceedings are concerned, not for civil suits.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury sha
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 06:15:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> >But the venue doesn't necessarily favor one party over the
> >other.
> Both sides waiving the right to a jury trial? Yes, it doesn't necessarily
> favor one party over the other. (Neither does choice of
Walter Landry wrote:
>But the venue doesn't necessarily favor one party over the
>other.
Both sides waiving the right to a jury trial? Yes, it doesn't necessarily
favor one party over the other. (Neither does choice of venue, which we also
Don't Like.) I still think it's non-free; I mean, gee
On May 13, 2004, at 19:06, MJ Ray wrote:
Can we reasonably expect that anyone licensing us some patents in
order to use their software has such patents? If not, why don't they
declare that instead of licensing a nothing to us?
I doubt IBM knows which patents it has regarding most of the free
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
> > "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation."
> >
> > That's not a legitimate requirement of a free software license, is it?
>
> N
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Consider what we would say if we were explaining why debian-legal ruled
> this license non-free: "Well, it doesn't allow you to sue the people who
> wrote the software and still keep the right to distribute the
> software."
Absolutely. I don't see why
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
> > >> legal action against I
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however:
> "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation."
>
> That's not a legitimate requirement of a free software license, is it?
No. I didn't notice that earlier (mostly because I only
Raul Miller wrote:
> * The license doesn't discrimate against people, groups or fields of
> endeavor. [We do not recognize "people wanting to enforce particular
> intellectual property claims" as a field of endeavor, or the GPL wouldn't
> be free.]
It's the lack of particularity which makes this
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
>> against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
>> such a patent in a counterclaim?
>
> What does this have to do with free so
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
>> like
>> the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
>> nullifying
>> the patent in question. [...]
>
> What if you wa
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>> Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the
>>> cases
>>> above, terminate?
>> This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from
>> all
>> of the s
@ 14/05/2004 07:03 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
"We insist that licenses be perpetual unless terminated for
non-compliance" Branden Robinson during the LaTeX discussions
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00108.html -- Now, the
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
> >> legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
> >> soft
On 2004-05-14 11:03:41 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think that accepting non-free patent licenses is a useful
way to
defend free software.
Then why would suing IBM over patent license violations matter for
free software?
The wording is a little vague: a "patent applic
On 2004-05-14 10:58:00 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, you can't base that claim on the assertion that the license
is non-free. "Contaminating other software" would make the license
non-free, but the converse is not necessarily true.
Does this post stating truisms mean a
On 2004-05-14 10:50:26 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other
software.
That might make it incompatible with the GPL, but this is a typical
characteristic of many licen
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> "We insist that licenses be perpetual unless terminated for
> non-compliance" Branden Robinson during the LaTeX discussions
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00108.html -- Now, the
> IBM patent licence terminates if you do
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Summary: we are being offered a non-free patent licence which may or
> may not be required, which is a different case to being offered no
> patent licence for no known relevant patents.
It's not clear to me that this patent license is non
> > I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination
> > mechanism here. [...]
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other
> software.
That might make it incompatible with the GPL, but this is a typical
On 2004-05-14 03:28:02 +0100 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you prefer that the license, like most earlier Free Software
licenses, say nothing at all about patents in order to remain free,
while IBM retains the freedom to sue you for infringing their patents
*whether or not* you su
Summary: we are being offered a non-free patent licence which may or
may not be required, which is a different case to being offered no
patent licence for no known relevant patents.
On 2004-05-14 02:12:12 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Consider what we would say if we were ex
On 2004-05-14 00:33:53 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:11:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Free software licences should not contaminate other software,
remember?
I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination
mechanism here. [...]
It impose
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
> >like
> >the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
> >nullifying
> >the pate
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>>> Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the cases
>>> above, terminate?
>>
>> This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from all
>> of the software
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:06:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >Given that our standard position on patents is to ignore them unless a
> >particular patent holder is threatening us with lawsuits, I see no
> >reason why we shouldn't apply the same policy here.
>
> Our standard position on patents is usu
> > What does this have to do with free software?
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:11:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Free software licences should not contaminate other software, remember?
I agree -- and maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a contamination
mechanism here.
All I see is statements saying disc
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:06:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sure, but a patent licence might not be needed because there are no
> patents covering the software. If there are patents covering it, then
> having no patent licence => non-free.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple -- the U.S. patent off
On 2004-05-13 18:24:21 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Also, note that this license isn't saying "We license you these
patents,
...", but instead "We license you whatever patents we may or may not
have over this software, ...". Like any other piece of software, it
may
or may
On 2004-05-13 18:12:32 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
such a
patent in a counterclaim?
On 2004-05-13 18:09:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Why should this software's licence, not directly involved in the
cases
above, terminate?
This software's license doesn't terminate. The patent license from
all
of the software's contributors not to sue you
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 03:29:35 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>>> To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
>>> legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
>>> software. [...]
>>
>> [...] This has the effect
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 05:17:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> What if you want to enforce some other patent applicable to software
> against IBM? What if IBM initiates against you and you want to use
> such a patent in a counterclaim?
What does this have to do with free software?
> Why should this
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
>> like
>> the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up nullifying
>> the patent in question. [...]
>
> What if you want t
On 2004-05-13 16:54:36 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, if IBM begins initiates some patent litigation, it looks
like
the license still stands -- even if that litigation winds up
nullifying
the patent in question. [...]
What if you want to enforce some other patent a
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> This seems rather worse than being mute about patents, putting IBM in
> a position of strength if software patents are involved.
I don't think I agree. At least, not yet.
In reading over this license, I see a number of clauses designed t
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
In my case it is a rather trivial Perl module (I18N::AcceptLanguage), to
write it was probably less time consuming than this discussion. Perhaps
I could ask the author why he uses such a complicated license for such
a trvial piece of software.
1) Given that the IBM Publ
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:30:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
> >>legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" s
On 2004-05-13 03:29:35 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
software. [...]
[...] This has the effect of a patent
cross-license: "Don't
On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
legal action against IBM about patents "applicable to" some other
software. [...]
It only terminates a patent license, not
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
>>under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
>
> Normally, you should include the licence text.
>
>>Since the license included some susp
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
> > under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
>
> Normally, you should include the licence text.
>
> > Since t
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
> under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
> Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched the list
> archives about it. The findings were confusing:
>
> -
On 2004-05-12 22:59:18 +0100 Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
> under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Normally, you should include the licence text.
> Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searc
Hi.
I just wanted to package a piece of software and saw that it is licensed
under the IBM Public License[1] (IPL).
Since the license included some suspicios clauses I searched the list
archives about it. The findings were confusing:
- There are many discussions (e.g. [2], [3]) about the patent
51 matches
Mail list logo
