On 2004-07-07 12:42:22 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> I just got a cc of questions sent by a Mozilla rep to the relevant
>> person.
>> More news later, hopefully.
[...]
> Has there been any progress on this?
Not mu
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I just got a cc of questions sent by a Mozilla rep to the relevant
> person. More news later, hopefully.
I'm still catching up on the list, so I may have missed your followup to
this (though there was none to this message)...
Has there be
On 2004-06-27 11:50:21 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If there is a choice of venue clause (and it's considered valid,
which it
likely would be), it's likely that it would require a US defendant to
go to
Santa Clara to avoid summary judgement.
Yes, it seems I got it total
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
>
> > If there are no active patents covering the software,
>
> Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
> enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in
> respect
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people
>> to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the
>> legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for some
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly
> >>helpful
> >>in understandi
On 2004-06-23 19:16:34 +0100 Jim Marhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think I also referenced Bug #211765, where the license is described
as
non-free, and a longer discussion is referenced:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2003/09/msg00410.html
OK, I missed that. The SGI F S L B clause seems
On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly
helpful
in understanding why this makes something non-free, and similar
terms are
in some licen
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:41:51AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
>
> > If there are no active patents covering the software,
>
> Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
> enforced or not. If the license does
MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
> If there are no active patents covering the software,
Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in
respect of the software released, people
MJ wrote:
> The reference offered as showing that SGI B is considered non-free only
> showed one post to me, not a discussion.
I think I also referenced Bug #211765, where the license is described as
non-free, and a longer discussion is referenced:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2003/09/msg004
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 1. It does not allow derived works to be distributed under the same
> > terms as
> > the original software (DFSG #3).
>
> If there are no active patents covering the software, I think clauses
> 2.1(b) and 2.1(d) are no-ops. If there wer
Dear debian-legal subscribers,
Certain developers and others are promoting the idea that debian-legal
has declared the Mozilla Public Licence, which I don't think we have,
but sadly the thread has died out. I think that the large number of
responses to the "draft summary" shows that there is no
13 matches
Mail list logo
