Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-28 Thread Sam TH
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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-28 Thread John Galt
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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-28 Thread Walter Landry
>>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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-27 Thread John Galt
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. >> > >

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-27 Thread Walter Landry
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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-27 Thread John Galt
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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-27 Thread Walter Landry
> 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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-27 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-27 Thread Walter Landry
> >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.

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-25 Thread Brian Ristuccia
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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-25 Thread John Galt
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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-25 Thread Walter Landry
> >; 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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-25 Thread John Galt
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

Re: three send back changes clauses

2001-05-24 Thread Brian Ristuccia
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