On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:36:16AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I believe that the legal systems of US states cooperate much more than
> those of different countries. Also, a dispute involving several states
> would probably be either escalated to federal court, or require you to
> appear in Cali
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2004, at 11:32, Sven Luther wrote:
>
>> Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if
>> the defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or
>> otherwise has not the physical means to be present ? And in this
>> case, how
On Jul 23, 2004, at 11:32, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if the
defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or
otherwise has
not the physical means to be present ? And in this case, how could the
judge
make the judgement bi
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:16:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:25:16PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >>Sven Luther writes:
> The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
> >>>
> >>>Well, any licence allowing the user t
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:25:16PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>>Sven Luther writes:
The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
>>>
>>>Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued discriminate against people
>>>not
>>>having the time or money t
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:30:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:58:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Lan
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:58:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > The
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
> > > > Versail
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
> > > Versailles is probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a
> > > lawyer of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> I think that such a clause would be binding in the USA. Courts have
>> held that choice of venue clauses in "click-through" agreements are
>> binding (Groff v America Online in RI Superior Court, 1998), so I
>> suspect a copyright-based license clause would also be bi
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > | Choice of Law
> > |
> > | This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> >
Cool, I'm arguing against both Lex and Luther.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:21:02PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would point to an even more significant difference: the legal
> harrassment scenario cannot be avoided under any circumstances. No
And because they're unavoidable, we should allo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The case at hand here applies to an hypothetical cost which you may encoure if
> you are violating the licence, or if upstream decides to become mad (or mad at
> you) and try lawsuit harrasment.
>
> See the difference. One is an immediate and incontournable
> > Ok, this seems indeed similar to what i was told. Now, what would be the
> > legality of that claim in the licence ?
>
> I think that such a clause would be binding in the USA. Courts have
> held that choice of venue clauses in "click-through" agreements are
> binding (Groff v America Onlin
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> | Choice of Law
> |
> | This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> | settled by the Court of Versailles.
>
> Ok, this is the last point of co
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:55:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well can you propose a real example of what we are considering here ? An
> > example for which upstream sues an random user over the QPL. Also such a
> > case
> > were
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of
> > > > > things.
> > > > So
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of
> > > > things.
>
> > > So in general, you believe it's ok to inflict all kinds of risks on
> >
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of things.
> > So in general, you believe it's ok to inflict all kinds of risks on
> > users who exercise their rights on software in main, so long as the DFSG
> > doe
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:36:57PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Sven Luther writes:
> >>
> >> >> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
> >> >> Nice for doing X?
> >>
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sven Luther writes:
>>
>> >> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
>> >> Nice for doing X?
>> >
>> > I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question
>
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:07:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:25:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > | Choice of Law
>
> > | This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> > | settled by the Court of Versailles.
>
> >
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> >> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
> >> Nice for doing X?
> >
> > I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question at
> > hand here.
>
> Contract
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:16:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:32:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if the
> > defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or otherwise has
> > not the phys
Sven Luther writes:
>> live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
>> Nice for doing X?
>
> I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question at
> hand here.
Contract law can override that. That does not mean we have to accept
that kind of overri
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:32:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if the
> defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or otherwise has
> not the physical means to be present ?
You believe it's ok to assume all French jud
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:25:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> | Choice of Law
> | This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
> | settled by the Court of Versailles.
> Ok, this is the last point of contention. The choice of laws seems to be
> acc
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > How would that work? How can you sue someone based on a unilateral
> > permission that they gave you?
>
> Because upstream used one of your modification in a private version of the
> software, without including it in the QPLed version for example ?
Isn't that
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:33:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors
> >> > based on
> >> > the licence ?
> >>
> >> I am not sure w
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based
>> > on
>> > the licence ?
>>
>> I am not sure what in the license would give rise to a cause for
>> action against the authors
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based on
> > the licence ?
>
> I am not sure what in the license would give rise to a cause for
> action against the authors: it grants others more rights tha
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:55:16PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based on
> > the licence ?
>
> How would that work? How can you sue someone based on a unilateral
> permission that they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think that such a clause would be binding in the USA. Courts have
> held that choice of venue clauses in "click-through" agreements are
> binding (Groff v America Online in RI Superior Court, 1998), so I
> suspect a copyright-based license clause would a
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > they are an implicit consequence of violating the license. Likewise,
> > Debian considers licenses non-free if they say "You may only use this
> > software in legal ways" because that discriminates against dissidents
> > where there are repressive laws.
What'
Sven Luther writes:
>> Unless I live or do business where you or SCO are (or some court wants
>> to look silly in front of the world) you and SCO would have to file
>> suit where I am. You could not sue me in France, and SCO could not
>> sue me in Utah. The license is non-free when it compels me
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:25:16PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> >> The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
> >
> > Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued discriminate against people
> > not
> > having the time or money to play legal g
Sven Luther writes:
>> The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
>
> Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued discriminate against people not
> having the time or money to play legal games.
That is why most licenses don't bother to mention lawsuits at all:
they a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:26AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:21:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Examples of that are pre-trial conferences, where both sides must be
> >> physically present (either in person or through counsel) before t
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:21:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Examples of that are pre-trial conferences, where both sides must be
>> physically present (either in person or through counsel) before the
>> judge, so that they can efficiently agree on scheduling and procedu
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:21:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >
> >> IIRC, there is no requirement for a private individual to be
> >> represented by a lawyer in an English court, although many are.
> >> Addit
Please do not cc me. I am subscribed. I have tried to respect your
requests in the past.
On 2004-07-23 16:00:10 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[...], the need to hire a lawyer local to Versailles is a
significant
additio
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> IIRC, there is no requirement for a private individual to be
>> represented by a lawyer in an English court, although many are.
>> Additionally, the case would probably be heard in the appropriate
>> court neares
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-23 13:25:48 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
> >Versailles is
> >probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a lawyer of similar
> >competence
On 2004-07-23 13:25:48 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
Versailles is
probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a lawyer of similar
competence
and fluent in the Laws of France, in a country local to the
defendent. I
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Upto now, the identified problems are threefold, so we can start subthread for
> analysing and discussing them separatedly. Please don't read to much into my
> tentative of concise sumary below for each of those, and argument clearly in
45 matches
Mail list logo
