On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 01:46:47PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > 11.1 Term and Termination. The term of this License is perpetual
> > unless terminated as provided below. This License and the rights granted
> > hereunder will terminate:
>
> > (d) upon written notice from Licensor if You, at any
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 12:52:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> These licences are not normally so considerate as to limit
> themselves to swpat claims. Even the RPSL, which seems one of
> the less offensive ones, says "any patent". I wouldn't mind so
> much if I only lost patent permission that I didn't
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > My main argument for not mixing them is that most of these terms
> > seem extend software patents into places which don't have them
> > yet, but do have software copyright. [...]
> That seems like a reasonable argument. However, I don't
MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm undecided about these clauses. One argument against them seems to
>>be "don't mix patents and copyrights", but I havn't seen much of a case
>>for that--it seems to say "don't try to protect against patents via
>>copyright", but copyrig
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm undecided about these clauses. One argument against them seems to
> be "don't mix patents and copyrights", but I havn't seen much of a case
> for that--it seems to say "don't try to protect against patents via
> copyright", but copyright is all we hav
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 03:09:59AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 02:55:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > I believe that most of us have come to the conclusion that self-protection
> > clauses are free. These are of the form:
> > "If you make a legal claim stating t
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 02:55:17PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I believe that most of us have come to the conclusion that self-protection
> clauses are free. These are of the form:
> "If you make a legal claim stating that use (/distribution/etc.) of this
> software infringes a patent, then
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:55:17 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> There is argument over those clauses which do not impact legitimate
> non-software patents, but which do impact uses of software patents
> against unrelated software. I think many of us consider these to
> "contaminate other software",
Nick Phillips wrote:
> So. The proposition to discuss would appear to be along the lines of:
>
> Debian accepts that it may in certain circumstances be desirable
> (or at least acceptable) for software licenses to limit certain
> freedoms in order better to protect Free Software as a w
* Adeodato Simó [Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:10:39 +0100]:
> So I have a question: what is the _practical_ result of License LB in
> (b) above, that D can't use A's LB-licensed programs any more, unless
^
uhm, that's probably wrong, then? (After
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:27:44PM -0700, OSS wrote:
>>Steve,
>>If I follow you correctly
>> A - writes program #49 and licenced under
>>GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence
>> B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made
>>enhancement/change)
>> C
[I'm trying to follow the discussion in hopes of better understanding
the issue in order to form an opinion about it. Please excuse me if I
need big amounts of cluebat with this...]
* OSS [Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:27:44 -0700]:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett's subsequent message pinpoints
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
> > have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
> That "given" was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
>
I'm sorry that Nick feels misunderstood. The point I was trying to
make was that the proposition as written was far too broad and agreeing
with it probably means agreeing with popular bogeymen like the "pet a cat"
licence.
Nick wrote:
> So the question I was trying to ask was "do we believe that t
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't think that Josh has said that -- especially given that you do not
> have to have a copyright license to *use* a program. [...]
That "given" was only clarified in English law fairly recently, added by
implementing some EU directive in the 1990s IIRC. In general, it
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:27:44PM -0700, OSS wrote:
> Steve,
> If I follow you correctly
>A - writes program #49 and licenced under
> GPL-compliant-patent-defending-licence
>B - distributed program #49 to C-D (may or may not have made
> enhancement/change)
>C - determines their pa
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:41:31PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Lost attribution, Josh I think
Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
accusations of patent infringement re
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:41:31PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
> > > accusations of patent infringement regarding the software itself is
> > > consistent w
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:49:32AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > However, many software licenses choose to go further than that,
"few"
> > requiring that distributors refrain entirely from engaging in patent
> > lawsuits against a
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, many software licenses choose to go further than that,
> requiring that distributors refrain entirely from engaging in patent
> lawsuits against any authors of the software, regardless of whether
> those lawsuits are related to the software or no
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Requiring that distributors of a piece of software refrain from making
> > accusations of patent infringement regarding the software itself is
> > consistent with the goal of upholding the freedoms of users over that
> > software.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 06:07:19PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Damn. Still being misuderstood. The intention of that paragraph was not
> to allow arbitrary restrictions, but rather to indicate that perhaps we
> do believe that *some* (as yet unspecified, but soon to be specified)
> restrictions a
Josh Triplett wrote:
> I agree that this proposition is not specific enough about the types of
> conditions that we consider acceptable. I would propose the following
> addition to the above text, which I believe specifies a set of
> acceptable conditions that many on -legal agree with:
>
> """
>
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 05:35:27PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>Debian accepts that it may in certain circumstances be desirable
> >>(or at least acceptable) for software licenses to limit certain
> >>freedoms in order better to protect Free Software as a whole. A
> >>current ex
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:57:21AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Start with something uncontroversial and then build to:
>
> [...]
> > > In the light of the threat that software patents pose to Free
> > > Software, we believe that it is likewise acceptable for software
> > > licenses to plac
Nick proposed:
> > Debian accepts that it may in certain circumstances be desirable
> > (or at least acceptable) for software licenses to limit certain
> > freedoms in order better to protect Free Software as a whole.
Start with something uncontroversial and then build to:
[...]
> >
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 08:42:07PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
>>On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:19:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>>>Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
>
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 08:42:07PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:19:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
> > > >affect other piece
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:19:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
> > >affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?
> > Yes, because I do not bel
29 matches
Mail list logo
