Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
>> I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
>> license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
>> clauses?
>
> The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's adv
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the
>> Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of
>> converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major me
Glenn Maynard said on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400,:
> would the individual clause or the entire license be considered
> invalid? If the latter, licenses with unenforcable clauses should
> probably be considered non-free, as the license could be terminated
> as a result.
That d
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:41:23PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> The GNU/GPL, OTOH, does not impose an obligation on *use*. Obviously,
> the FSF does not require it to be `accepted'. The policy of certain
> package installation software, (typically on non-free platforms)
> insisting on t
Branden Robinson said on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500,:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:29:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > To veer off the subject a little, we don't like licenses which
> > engage in too much contract-like behavior, because they're
> > usually non-free.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the
> Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of
> converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major media[3]
> and proprietary so
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
> > which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern ---
> > to be un
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:29:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> To veer off the subject a little, we don't like licenses which engage
> in too much contract-like behavior, because they're usually non-free.
> In particular, any license which requires that you agree to it in
> order to *use* it -
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 10:25:17PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 06:26:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > The QPL doesn't prevent forking, but the requirement to distribute
> > changes to the original source as patches makes a fork significantly
> > more difficult. This r
@ 27/04/2004 18:47 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I do know Dutch law, and under Dutch law a choice of law is
certainly respected in contracts, unless it's clearly totally
inappropriate.
And there has been quite some European caselaw that acknowledges the
possibility.
Here, the only law that c
Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
> >I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
> >clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
> >the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
> >
> >
> I don't believe this for a moment. Not in
@ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
I don't believe this for a moment. Not in the US, and most certainly not
in Br
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
> which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern ---
> to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other
> softwar
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This license is governed by the Laws of the Netherlands. Disputes shall
> > be settled by Amsterdam City Court."
>
> > I'm not particularly familiar with these clauses, but isn't the second
> > sentence a choice of venue? It
On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
clauses?
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
which seems to be widel
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
> license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
> clauses?
I can't place it exactly either, but I think it was some variant of
the BSDish "you must/must not
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:05:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> (However, in other cases we have ruled that some clause is not
> non-free only because it is not enforceable, so perhaps our general
> position is not very clear).
I'm not generally comfortable with that approach. For one thing, t
Scripsit Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While I am not a lawyer, I am a law student... and if I remember
> anything from my civil procedure course I don't think this
> particular choice of venue clause would stick in an international
> setting.
I'm with you there. But I think we usually take
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Again, I must profess my limit knowledge here... but by including a
> choice of law and choice of venue clause I begin to wonder if this
> licenses starts to
> look and smell an awful lot like a contract. While I generally agree with
> your statement, it seems awful fishy i
Again, I must profess my limit knowledge here... but by including a choice of
law and choice of venue clause I begin to wonder if this licenses starts to
look and smell an awful lot like a contract. While I generally agree with
your statement, it seems awful fishy in this instance. The author
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is just my two cents from a guy who reads debian-legal has never
> commented before. If anyone knows some good case law that contradicts what
> I've said, I'd be really interested to see it.
But free licenses are not contracts: they are deeds, li
While I am not a lawyer, I am a law student... and if I remember anything
from my civil procedure course I don't think this particular choice of venue
clause would stick in an international setting. Violation of contract law is
handled by the nation in which the violation is committed (note, t
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Choice of Law
> This license is governed by the Laws of the Netherlands. Disputes shall
> be settled by Amsterdam City Court."
> I'm not particularly familiar with these clauses, but isn't the second
> sentence a choice of venue? It doesn't feel fre
martin f krafft wrote:
> I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
> argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
> argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
> there to be one libcwd, and only one libcwd, and no "competition"
> fro
On Apr 24, 2004, at 18:08, martin f krafft wrote:
I have proposed to him to consider creating a license of his own,
which would basically allow everything except the incoporation of
the code into another project with the same goals as libcwd.
That wouldn't be free.
Urge him to reconsider his
On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 17:08, martin f krafft wrote:
> > It'd be nice if this license would go away. I'd recommend the
> > same thing that was recommended in the previous thread: ask the
> > upstream authors to dual license under the GPL, just like
> > Trolltech did.
>
> I am working on it. In the
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 06:26:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> The QPL doesn't prevent forking, but the requirement to distribute
> changes to the original source as patches makes a fork significantly
> more difficult. This restriction of the QPL is DFSG-free, but the other
FWIW, I'm among thos
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:08:54AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>>I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
>>argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
>>argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
>>there to
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:08:54AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
> argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
> argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
> there to be one libcwd, and onl
> It'd be nice if this license would go away. I'd recommend the
> same thing that was recommended in the previous thread: ask the
> upstream authors to dual license under the GPL, just like
> Trolltech did.
I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
argument for the QPL. He
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 12:09:58PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> To be more concrete, this fails the desert island test. If I make
> modifications, then I have to give the initial developer a copy, even
> if I am physically unable to do so. This differs from the "give
> source if you give binarie
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Sa, den 24.04.2004 schrieb Walter Landry um 18:09:
> > > 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> > > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> > > then you must supply o
On Apr 24, 2004, at 12:36, Joachim Breitner wrote:
I thought about that, but then I thought: "If [..] requests" - the
desert island guy can't be requested. But then, he might: cloud
painting, morse-earth-quakes, message-in-a-bottle...
Seems to be a corner case, and I have not yet an opinion on
Hi,
Am Sa, den 24.04.2004 schrieb Walter Landry um 18:09:
> > 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> > then you must supply one.
> To be more concrete, this fails the desert island
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ee a problem with
>
> 6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> then you must supply one.
>
> What if I have my family-only pri
gal straight, not first to
> -devel.
>
> Please CC me on replies!
>
> I would like to package a software released under the QPL licence:
>
>
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/libcwd/libcwd/LICENSE.QPL?rev=1.1
>
> It *seems* that the QPL is DF
Sorry, this should have gone to -legal straight, not first to
-devel.
Please CC me on replies!
I would like to package a software released under the QPL licence:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/libcwd/libcwd/LICENSE.QPL?rev=1.1
It *seems* that the QPL is DFSG-free, but I
37 matches
Mail list logo
