Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Sean Kellogg wrote:
>> Just a quick chirp from a d-l lurker with a JD that the above is a pretty
>> common concept in consumer protection type laws and, as referenced, the
>> UCC.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
>> I did some focus group research for Microsoft a few years
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>> Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence
>> given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers
>> recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it
>> would be wise to use emphasised t
Ryan Finnie wrote:
> Walter,
>
> Thank you for your comments (everybody else too). Sorry for not
> following up sooner; please see question below.
>
> On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help wi
Ryan Finnie wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
> help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
>
> 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
> OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company
>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Ryan Finnie wrote:
> On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This looks like forced *public* availability and a 12-month
> >> retainer, which I think is both a significant cost (so not free
> >> redistribution) and maybe a
Hello,
On Monday 16 October 2006, à 00:53:36, Ryan Finnie wrote:
> On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with:
> >> > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications
> >> > publ
Walter,
Thank you for your comments (everybody else too). Sorry for not
following up sooner; please see question below.
On 9/27/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with:
> > (c) You must make Source Cod
Those links are dead for me. I found some other urls in /misc -- are
they the same license?
(in the future, please include the full text of licenses in the body
of email requests -- urls often change, but debian-legal is archived
all over the place)
http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/misc/lowe
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Just a quick chirp from a d-l lurker with a JD that the above is a pretty
> common concept in consumer protection type laws and, as referenced, the UCC.
Thanks for your input.
> I did some focus group research for Microsoft a few years back where
> they were experimentin
On Sunday 01 October 2006 01:58, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Laws like the Uniform Commercial Code do require that disclaimers
> of warranty be "by a writing and conspicuous".
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-316
Just a quick chirp from a d-l lurker with a JD that the above is a p
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence
> given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers
> recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it
> would be wise to use emphasised text, at leas
On 10/1/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suppose you could be equally conspicuous with boldface or
differently colored text. The problem is, as far as the lawyers
are concerned, all caps seems to work just fine. Why use
something different? At best, the court will rule it's just
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence
> given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers
> recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it
> would be wise to use emphasised text, at least put asterisks arou
On Sun, 2006-01-10 at 10:54 +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
> I am intending to some of my codes licensed under MIT license to the
> new license of my devising. I would like to have it reviewed.
Will this code be going into Debian?
> I am deadly serious.
No, you're not. The license itself says that
On 10/1/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/1/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What jurisdictions are these? The only anecdotal explanation I've ever
> heard for capsturbation in warranty disclaimers, at least in the US, is
that
> someone did it once and lawyers
On 10/1/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What jurisdictions are these? The only anecdotal explanation I've ever
heard for capsturbation in warranty disclaimers, at least in the US, is that
someone did it once and lawyers live in a monkey-see, monkey-do universe.
I believe someone
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:43:43PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hello, debian-legal!
> >I am intending to some of my codes licensed under MIT license to the
> >new license of my devising. I would like to have it reviewed.
> >I am deadly
On 10/1/06, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello, debian-legal!
I am intending to some of my codes licensed under MIT license to the
new license of my devising. I would like to have it reviewed.
I am deadly serious.
Link to the full text:
http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowe
Hello, debian-legal!
I am intending to some of my codes licensed under MIT license to the
new license of my devising. I would like to have it reviewed.
I am deadly serious.
Link to the full text:
http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/temp/lowercased (in plain text)
http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinu
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with:
> > (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications
> > publicly available under the terms of this License, including the
> > license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Dep
Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with:
> 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
> OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company
> itself considers it "open source", but I feel I am not qualified to
> make a determination.
I will comme
"Ryan Finnie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. The software is designed to replace certain components of qmail,
> which is wholly non-free.
Can it perform its function in the absence of qmail? Perhaps in the
presence of another MTA which is free?
> Even if the license is clean, does this make th
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:04:28PM -0700, Ryan Finnie wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
> help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
>
> 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
> OSI, and is not used in any
Greetings,
I responded to an RFP[0] for packaging magic-smtpd[1], and need some
help on the legal side. I see 3 issues here:
1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company
itself considers it "open source",
24 matches
Mail list logo
