On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 06:49:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 08:51:52AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > If I illegally acquire the program, I don't have usage rights, AIUI.
> >
> > Under traditional U.S. cop
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 08:51:52AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > If I illegally acquire the program, I don't have usage rights, AIUI.
>
> Under traditional U.S. copyright law (the DMCA notwithstanding), there
> is no such think as "illegal acquis
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 08:51:52AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> If I illegally acquire the program, I don't have usage rights, AIUI.
Under traditional U.S. copyright law (the DMCA notwithstanding), there
is no such think as "illegal acquisition". Just tortious or illegal
distribution.
For exa
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:51:34PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> >> This is very different from EULAs because with them the end user gets
> >> *less* rights that normally given by copyright
> >
> > The rights normally give
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
>> This is very different from EULAs because with them the end user gets
>> *less* rights that normally given by copyright
>
> The rights normally given by copyright are virtually ni
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:20:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Ah. I see your confusion now. You really can't legally use the
> software without accepting the license, but the GPL imposes no
> conditions upon your acceptance of paragraph 0 which grants you usage
> rights. You could call this p
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty.
> > Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software.
>
> The main problem is that that's simply not true - you
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:04:29PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> It looks to me like a possible case of being free but not
> distributable by Debian: because anyone distributing it would have to
> make people agree to the EULA, which would mean you couldn't just put
> it on an ftp server or
Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty.
> Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software.
The main problem is that that's simply not true - you _can_ use the
software without accepting the license[1].
If you want to copy or
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:09:08AM +0100, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> (Note that this message is required by GPL clause 2c).
> (admitted, I added the Click lines myself for clarity, but the important
> thing is GPL 2c and the first four lines).
The GPL's requirement is that it be displayed; it doesn't req
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:34PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
> > software ...
>
> I tried very hard last time this issue came up and failed to find any
> where the software
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
> > the software to drive a publicly accessible web server.
>
> I think it would be unfree, and probably even undistributable by Debian in
> non-free (we're not going to require an EULA to rece
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
> software ...
I tried very hard last time this issue came up and failed to find any
where the software would still be considered free and the EULA had
any effect at all.
> Su
I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
software ...
Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
the software to drive a publicly accessible web server. This condition
would still be DFSG-free, I think, but you can't enforce it with a
pure copy
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:11:25AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> > Anyone willing to clear things up?
>
> Sure. "EULA" is marketdrone speak for "a license permitting actions
> involving a copyrighted work". It's the content of those licenses th
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:11:25AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> Anyone willing to clear things up?
Sure. "EULA" is marketdrone speak for "a license permitting actions
involving a copyrighted work". It's the content of those licenses that
matters. Any association you may have between the te
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-04 11:40]:
> It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
> you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
> program that asks you to agree to some terms before continuing.
>
> The former looks like it
Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Besides that there are countries like Austria where click-through
> licenses are not legally binding.
It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
program that asks yo
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And if they put users through a click-wrap license, but don't require it
> on redistribution, there seems to be no point.
I have trouble figuring out clause 2 in the APSL, specifically point
2.2.c.
> (I've seen some slightly confused Windows installers
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-04 10:46]:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:21:29AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> > I suspect (though I could be wrong) that the the problem is that if it's
> > an "EULA", in that the user must agree to it before using the software
> > in question, we have
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:21:29AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> I suspect (though I could be wrong) that the the problem is that if it's
> an "EULA", in that the user must agree to it before using the software
> in question, we have to force them to agree to it before using it. We
> can't guarant
On 04 Dec 2002 03:11:25 +0100
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I started thinking on the Apple license again. Unlike the GPL, which
> is a copyright license, it appears to be an end user license agreement
> which you have to agree with "prior to downloading the code" or
> something
22 matches
Mail list logo
