Am Mo 28 Jan 2008 09:25:21 CET
schrieb Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I cannot speak to the British system, so John
> my very well be right in that context, but in the United States the
> critical question is whether the advice being given is of a specific
> or general nature.
In Germany the
Am Mo 28 Jan 2008 09:27:54 CET
schrieb "John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on
> earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as
> constituting "legal advice" in the first place.
Okay: Yes there is. At least the German on
Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
> disclaimer like "TINLA"?
I think the long list of acronyms may be a sly dig at certain silly
postings in times past which complained that certain people weren't making
it clear enough
On Monday 28 January 2008 01:27:54 am John Halton wrote:
> > Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal
> > system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is
> > a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it
> > away post fac
On Jan 26, 2008 2:52 PM, Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
> disclaimer like "TINLA"?
Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on
earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as
constit
On torsdagen den 24 januari 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVisio
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:23:53AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by
Hi,
Francesco Poli schrieb:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> [...]
>> *If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to
>> create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it
>> requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> *If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to
> create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it
> requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create/distribute
> derivative works.
I for
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:11:48 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> The "may be non-free" aspect was the requirement of requiring the
> creator of the derivative work to surrender their copyright to
> OpenVision. If such a requirement were in place in the license terms,
> I would regard it as non-free.
On Jan 24, 2008 12:23 AM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the
> > licence, but it's not non-free.
>
> I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of "retain
> copyright" is not all-inclusive.
Well, as ever in t
John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by
> > > > a third party." I think this could threat t
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision
> > >also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
> > >created by OpenVision or by a third party." I think this could threat
> > > this software freedom.
> >
> AIUI th
Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a
> > >
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * line 81-83: "OpenVision
> >also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
> >created by OpenVision or by a third party." I think this could threat
> > this s
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:28 +, John Halton wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
> the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
>
> --
Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... I think the license of krb5
> (http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/k/krb5/krb5_1.4.3-5ubuntu0.2/)
>
> has two unclear sections regarding freedom:
>
> * line 18-21: "Export of this software from the United States of
> America may requir
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
---
The following copyright and permission notice appli
18 matches
Mail list logo
