On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 07:20:22PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> Having pointed out the compromise route, let me now go into why I think
> that "best effort" is not that onerous. Basically, making a one-off best
> effort to get the changes into the hands of one person is less onerous
> than providing
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
>>>Also, the court specifically said that "best effort"=="act in good
>>>faith". I don't see how you say that someone who uses the software
>>>but has no intention of ever contributing back changes (because their
>>>boss told them not to) is acting in goo
>>Also, the court specifically said that "best effort"=="act in good
>>faith". I don't see how you say that someone who uses the software
>>but has no intention of ever contributing back changes (because their
>>boss told them not to) is acting in good faith. The software should
>>still not go in
On Sun, 27 May 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
>From: John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: three send back changes clauses
>Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:13:21 -0600 (MDT)
>
>> >> effort". Basically, the weasel words come to the rescue again.
>> >
>
From: John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: three send back changes clauses
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:13:21 -0600 (MDT)
> >> effort". Basically, the weasel words come to the rescue again.
> >
> >It seems like you're interpreting the weasel words to make
On Sun, 27 May 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
>> >I don't agree. This puts a restriction on _users_. This means that
>> >it can't be used in the NSA, FBI, Los Alamos, typical Silicon Valley
>> >startups, or any other place that doesn't let people talk about what
>> >they do. That violates DFSG#6: N
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It seems like you're interpreting the weasel words to make the whole
> > clause have no practical effect. I don't think that we can really do
> > that. You're saying that if my boss tells me not to contribute back
> > changes, that is enough to f
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems like you're interpreting the weasel words to make the whole
> clause have no practical effect. I don't think that we can really do
> that. You're saying that if my boss tells me not to contribute back
> changes, that is enough to foil "best ef
> >I don't agree. This puts a restriction on _users_. This means that
> >it can't be used in the NSA, FBI, Los Alamos, typical Silicon Valley
> >startups, or any other place that doesn't let people talk about what
> >they do. That violates DFSG#6: No Discrimination Against Fields of
> >Endeavor.
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 06:55:54PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> You're right, though in context, classification is enough to foil "best
> effort". Basically, the weasel words come to the rescue again.
>
As one counterexample, decisions in shareholder lawsuits have interpreted
the terms "best effort
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
>> >; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
>> >; return to me any improvements or extensions that they make, so that
>> >; these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform me of
>> >; noteworthy uses of this softwar
> >; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
> >; return to me any improvements or extensions that they make, so that
> >; these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform me of
> >; noteworthy uses of this software.
>
> The B section here really is outside th
On 24 May 2001, James LewisMoss wrote:
>
>Please cc me on any replies. I'm not currently subscribed to this
>list.
>
>I've got three send back changes clauses. Comments on whether they
>are free?
All three sound DFSG free, since you use the weasel words "best efforts".
The big issue that I've s
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:56:45PM -0400, James LewisMoss wrote:
>
> Please cc me on any replies. I'm not currently subscribed to this
> list.
>
> I've got three send back changes clauses. Comments on whether they
> are free?
>
Clauses that request a user send changes back upstream are OK. Cl
14 matches
Mail list logo