Hello debian-legal
I got this from someone at AT&T.
I'm a little busy today and tomorrow, but perhaps someone other on the
list would care to write a reply explaining why we think their CYA
clauses invalidate the licence's freedom and how they could CYA just
as well without doing so.
Stephen: Th
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 01:52:39PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 1. The termination clause is there mainly to limit the damage to AT&T if
> > some 3rd party shows up and claims we've infringed on a patent we never
> > heard about and now we owe millions in damages. It will be interesting
> > t
I appreciate the suggestions.
0) Please can you point out the AT&T source code released under a
Debian-compliant license. This might eliminate the need for any more
discussion.
(If it refers to Doug Blewett's contributions to the X11 widget sets? I'm
not that
confident I can stretch the precedent
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 01:35:06PM -0500, Stephen C. North wrote:
> I appreciate the suggestions.
>
> 0) Please can you point out the AT&T source code released under a
> Debian-compliant license. This might eliminate the need for any more
> discussion.
> (If it refers to Doug Blewett's contributi
I'll only address points that I think I can safely argue myself without
having to ask a lawyer...
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 01:35:06PM -0500, Stephen C. North wrote:
> 2) The clause about feeding patches back to AT&T is interesting. Why does
> it
> conflict with this statement in the Debian social
> A user needs to
> be able to modify the software, period, without having to take any other
> action to enable them to perform that action legally.
>
Is this Elie's opinion or is it clearly stated in the Debian Free Software
Guidelines?
Either way, the AT&T source code agreement section 4.2 sta
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 02:42:42PM -0500, Stephen C. North wrote:
> > A user needs to
> > be able to modify the software, period, without having to take any other
> > action to enable them to perform that action legally.
> >
>
> Is this Elie's opinion or is it clearly stated in the Debian Free So
> I don't rule out someone distributing software licensed with the
> current license as part of non-free; if a maintainer wants to jump
> through whatever hoops are required, they are free to do so. I
> think if you got rid of the requirement to resubmit patches, there
> would be a better chance of
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 03:34:25PM -0500, Stephen C. North wrote:
> > I don't rule out someone distributing software licensed with the
> > current license as part of non-free; if a maintainer wants to jump
> > through whatever hoops are required, they are free to do so. I
> > think if you got rid o
Scripsit "Stephen C. North" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > A user needs to
> > be able to modify the software, period, without having to take any other
> > action to enable them to perform that action legally.
> Is this Elie's opinion or is it clearly stated in the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines?
Yo
> The freedoms required by Debian include the freedom for someone to
> set up a consultancy business and deliver custom-modified versions
> of any Debian component to his customers .. without having to take
> any other action to enable them to perform that action legally.
Yes, if "delivering custo
Scripsit Elie Rosenblum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Hey, no one even objected to the prohibition against framing the AT&T
> > website yet!
> We don't care about that.
I have not read the actual license in question recently, but we most
certainly would care a licence which boiled down to, "I give you
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Stephen C. North wrote:
> But doesn't the GPL also require the sharing of source code?
It requires that you share the source code *with whomever you give
binaries to*. It does not require you to share the source code with
A just because you give binaries to B. (However, if B
>
> It requires that you share the source code *with whomever you give
> binaries to*. It does not require you to share the source code with
> A just because you give binaries to B. (However, if B wants to share
> the source code with A you have to accept that).
>
> --
> Henning Makholm
You are
Stephen:
In my informal opinion, a license closely following the DFSG obviates the
need for any "reciprocality" or "notice" clauses respecting code
modification, such as ATT License Sec. 4.2. Here's my reasoning. If
hackers distribute patched versions of a DFSG-compliant code base, then they
mus
15 matches
Mail list logo
