Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I think that sounds lovely in theory... however, I really have no sense of
> how the ftpmasters synthesis the debates that go on here.
I don't think many do. I watch the effects and try to work out
what's happening. Sometimes it's good, sometimes ba
On 8/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read, and am enlightened! To repeatedly disclaim authority, either
> as a representative of the community or as a subject matter expert, is
> to self-select as an authority! To acknowledge error, in response to
> concrete evidence broug
On 8/5/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
> >a self-selected crew of ideologues with brazen contempt
> >for real-world law and no fiduciary relationship to anyone is not too
> >swift -- whether or not they have law degrees (or university chairs in
> >law
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
a self-selected crew of ideologues with brazen contempt
for real-world law and no fiduciary relationship to anyone is not too
swift -- whether or not they have law degrees (or university chairs in
law and legal history). Not all debian-legal participants deserve to
be
On 8/1/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you believe that posting your life story to debian-legal qualifies
> as "grounding in real-world law"?
It qualifies as a reminder to anyone who's considering taking me
seriously that they're doing so based on the arguments I raise and
whate
On 8/1/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Myself, I would no more redistribute a peer-to-peer client offered
> under a license like BitTorrent's than I would play Russian Roulette
> with a loaded Uzi. But YMMV.
I suppose I should explain that. I may or may not have used one
BitT
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:46:50PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
> > about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
> > non-free restrictions o
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:06:54 + (UTC) Michael Janssen wrote:
> Francesco Poli winstonsmith.info> writes:
>
> > I've just re-read the relevant threads, and I do not agree that the
> > two above mentioned clauses are the only issues.
> [...]
> > Consequently, the issues to be solved are, at le
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have not meant to equate DFSG freeness with what can go into Debian,
> but DFSG freeness is an important threshold issue. If my messages
> misled on that point, I apologize. There are other factors to
> consider, but this thread was original
Michael K. Edwards writes:
> On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
>> about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
>> non-free restrictions or requirements on licensees. Argument from
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
> about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
> non-free restrictions or requirements on licensees. Argument from
> authority will not change that
Michael K. Edwards writes:
> Anyway, as to personal jurisdiction -- this is a legal principle lost
> in the mists of time, adapted in modern times to fit the realities of
> commerce without personal contact. A "choice of venue" clause is not
> In sum, trying to shoehorn any of the warranty / liab
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The law that creates the warranty also allows its disclaimer; it
> allows a developer to refuse the cost that the law incurs. In that
> way, the disclaimer reverts the cost balance to its state in the
> absense of the law. This is distinct fro
Ken Arromdee writes:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
>> >> It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
>> >> by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
>> >> relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
>> > I'm not sure that's a di
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
> >> by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
> >> relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
> > I'm not sure that's a distinction. After all, a fe
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> For that reason, A non-lawyer is equally suited to point out potential
> wording problems in a contract as a lawyer.
I don't believe anybody has ever disputed this. It would be kinda
silly, since that's what we do around here all the t
Ken Arromdee writes:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
>> It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
>> by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
>> relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
>
> I'm not sure that's a distinction
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
> It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
> by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
> relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
I'm not sure that's a distinction. After all, a fee applies w
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:35 pm, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>> It is not discrimination: every user is treated identically.
>
> Same with the petting an animal... everyone has to do it. Did you know that
> pre-18 years olds CANNOT agree to a waiver of liability? Seems waiver
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:03:18PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > But, if I grant your point, and accept that the DFSG protects my right to
> > > all those things, why doesn't it invalidate licenses that waive liability
> > > to the distributor? Isn't that my inaliable right... a fee I must pay
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:35 pm, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sean Kellogg writes:
> > On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> In contrast to choice of law, choice of venue requires users who are
> >> not normally subject to that court's personal jurisdiction to give up
> >> a right th
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
>> In contrast to choice of law, choice of venue requires users who are
>> not normally subject to that court's personal jurisdiction to give up
>> a right they normally have to use the software. Take your pick
>> whethe
It amuses me to make the comparison between Mr. Kellogg's credentials
and my own. I am no undergrad either; shedding that status took me
four tries, two universities, and just over seven years. I graduated
in Physics with no distinction to speak of, in December 1995, and it
was rather an anticlim
Now, I recognize that I am still "in school" and haven't "taken the bar."
But
I'm no dummy. That being said, I have a lot to learn... but based on the
conversations on this list, I think I'm about as qualified as anyone else
to
point out that the term "available" is different from "distribu
On Sunday 31 July 2005 07:44 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> An undergrad law student. Letting law undergrads write licenses is at
> least as bad as letting CS undergrads write code (and CS students
> don't have to undergo further training before they can practice). And
> lawyers who've just passed th
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sean Kellogg writes:
> > On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
> >> Sean Kellogg u.washington.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> [8< Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8<]
> >>
> >> > Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clau
Francesco Poli winstonsmith.info> writes:
> I've just re-read the relevant threads, and I do not agree that the two
> above mentioned clauses are the only issues.
[...]
> Consequently, the issues to be solved are, at least,
> . one in clause 4b
> . one in 4c
> . _two_ in 13
Okay, I have rew
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 05:20:40PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Saturday 30 July 2005 04:38 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
> > > But if they are willing to
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
>> Sean Kellogg u.washington.edu> writes:
>>
>> [8< Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8<]
>>
>> > Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
>> > But if they are willing to drop a venue req
On Sunday 31 July 2005 12:13 am, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/30/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > ... choice-of-venue clauses just keep people from playing
> > the venue shopping game.
>
> Is there actually anywhere in the world that a choice-of-venue clause
> in a co
On 7/30/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> ... choice-of-venue clauses just keep people from playing
> the venue shopping game.
Is there actually anywhere in the world that a choice-of-venue clause
in a contract of adhesion is worth the paper it isn't written on? I
wouldn't thi
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Saturday 30 July 2005 04:38 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > I'm surprised that folks on this list are comfortable with such
> > > strong choice-of-law provisions.
> >
> > Choice of law p
On Saturday 30 July 2005 04:38 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
> > But if they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for
> > users of Debian! I'm s
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:55:33 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > The Source Code for any version of Licensed
> > Product or Modifications that you distribute must remain available
> > for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became
> > available, or at least six (6) months after a sub
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:52:12 -0500 Michael Janssen wrote:
[...]
> I have been trying to get the authors of BitTorrent to change their
> license (the BitTorrent Open Source License) in order to make it
> suitable for inclusion in Debian.
Your efforts are really appreciated.
> The BitTorrent Open
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 04:23:51PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Oh, wow... here my thought was people felt six months wasn't long enough...
> not too long. I suppose that certainly could be a problem for the manner in
> which Debian distributes, however, I don't think it is a DFSG problem.
It
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free. But
> if
> they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for users of
> Debian! I'm surprised that folks on this list are comfortable with such
>
On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
> Sean Kellogg u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> [8< Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8<]
>
> > Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
> > But if they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for
> >
Sean Kellogg u.washington.edu> writes:
[8< Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8<]
> Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free. But
> if
> they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for users of
> Debian! I'm surprised that folks on this list are comfo
On Saturday 30 July 2005 07:52 am, Michael Janssen wrote:
> Hello legal gurus:
>
> I have been trying to get the authors of BitTorrent to change their
> license (the BitTorrent Open Source License) in order to make it
> suitable for inclusion in Debian. The BitTorrent Open Source License
> has bee
40 matches
Mail list logo
