Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
wise? IIRC, should it become necessary, legal action cannot be taken by
jus
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
> seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
> be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
> wise? IIRC, should it be
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
> seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
> be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
> wise? IIRC, should it be
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
>Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
>seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
>be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
>wise? IIRC, should it become
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Lots of free software projects are developed by fairly large groups. It
> > seems to be a common practice for everyone who contributes to a project to
> > be added to the Copyright notice at the top of the file. Is this actually
> > wise? IIRC, shou
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:53:30AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >How then should free software projects handle Copyright? Advice would be
> >appreciated. I'm sure I'm not the first person to ever worry about this.
>
> As a necessary evil :) Seriously, the only real way to deal with it is
> to do w
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:53:30AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >How then should free software projects handle Copyright? Advice would be
>> >appreciated. I'm sure I'm not the first person to ever worry about this.
>>
>> As a necessary evil :) Seriously,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 09:17:37AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> On the other hand, having a large number of copyright holders of a GPL
> project can be an advantage: it means the project cannot easily be
> bought out or have its licence changed or abused, as you would need
> the consent of
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> I can see where you are going. The alternatives I see are pretty much
> five:
>
> 1) the list of thirty names
If there is no legal problem with this, it's reasonable.
> 2) the group/readme
If there is no legal problem with this, it'
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 3) list two or three primary contacts (the Berne riff kind of means that
> > all thirty still have standing to sue).
>
> Don't you still have to notify everyone? What if some people cannot be
> contacted? Must notice be served in any particular manner or d
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> I can see where you are going. The alternatives I see are pretty much
>> five:
>>
>> 1) the list of thirty names
>
>If there is no legal problem with this, it's reasonable.
True, but this is
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 05:20:09AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >> 2) the group/readme
> >
> >If there is no legal problem with this, it's better (because it's less of
> >a hassle!)
>
> I'm thinking it could be construed as a DBA.
?
> >Don't you still have to notify everyone? What if some people
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > 4) incorporate (some places incorporation requires some small number
> > [anywhere from 1 to 5] of incorporators, and a few bucks to the state:
> > Idaho requires one and $30, for example).
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 03:29:58AM -0700, Jos
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> Well supposedly SPI already exists for this purpose, however SPI and
> Debian both cower in fear from the mere potential of a cease-and-desist
> letter because someone got the bright idea that one might be possible
> under a silly US currently law being actively ch
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 06:06:54AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Well supposedly SPI already exists for this purpose, however SPI and
> Debian both cower in fear from the mere potential of a cease-and-desist
> letter because someone got the bright idea that one might be possible
> under a silly US
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 05:20:09AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> >> 2) the group/readme
>> >
>> >If there is no legal problem with this, it's better (because it's less of
>> >a hassle!)
>>
>> I'm thinking it could be construed as a DBA.
>
>?
The group name
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> The group name would be as if a partnership filed a Does Business As.
For the case of Oregon (the only state where I've mucked with this stuff),
you have to file for a partnership with the commerce department, just
like you'd have to fil
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the fiction that a corporation has rights as a person is granted, it
> only follows that the next step in the progression is that unincorporated
> groups start to get the same rights. It's as screwed up as a football
> bat, but that's never stopped the .
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> True, but this is the outcome that we're trying to avoid, as it's
> sub-optimal.
"we".
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) the list of thirty names
This is annoying, but works fine.
> 2) the group/readme
This is dangerous, because the group has no legal reality as a rule.
It doesn't mean you lose copyright, certainly, but it injects a vest
doubt into "who is the group". F
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 3) list two or three primary contacts (the Berne riff kind of means that
> > all thirty still have standing to sue).
>
> That's no good at all. All are still copyright owners, so you're
> deliberately misleading the people who get the code. Indeed,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> Ask Dmitriy Sklyarov how ineffectual it is
Isn't he the guy who treatened to sue over archives? If so, then yeah, I
was shocked and dismayed to see something resembling a backbone for a nice
change of pace. Regarding legal absurdit
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> True, but this is the outcome that we're trying to avoid, as it's
>> sub-optimal.
>
>"we".
Myself and knghtbrd.
--
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath wisdom count the number of the BSD: for
it is the number
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If the fiction that a corporation has rights as a person is granted, it
>> only follows that the next step in the progression is that unincorporated
>> groups start to get the same rights. It's as screwed up a
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> If the fiction that a corporation has rights as a person is granted, it
> >> only follows that the next step in the progression is that unincorporated
> >> group
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 1) the list of thirty names
>
>This is annoying, but works fine.
What are you trying to say here that hasn't already been said?
>> 2) the group/readme
>
>This is dangerous, because the group has no legal real
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> Ask Dmitriy Sklyarov how ineffectual it is
>
>Isn't he the guy who treatened to sue over archives? If so, then yeah, I
>was shocked and dismayed to see something resembling a backbone for
On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>>
>> >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> If the fiction that a corporation has rights as a person is granted, it
>> >> only follows that the next step
I'm snipping the normal John Galt obstructionism, off-topic political
commentary, and attempts to confuse issues, and responding only to the
real questions.
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >This is dangerous, because the group has no legal reality as a rule.
> >It doesn't mean you lose c
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume of course that you have cites on this? Please provide them.
Cites? What on earth are you talking about?
I'm saying "I don't think that it's appropriate for you to toss in
pointless Randroid nonsense into discussions". It obstructs your own
poin
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:22:48PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > Ask Dmitriy Sklyarov how ineffectual it is
>
> Isn't he the guy who treatened to sue over archives?
Yeah, I can see how you'd confuse a Mediterranean name like "Serg
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:57:01PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> We've been over this, and my "randroid philosophy" is closer to the truth
> than this claptrap. Unorganized groups are becoming closer to having
> legal standing.
Heretic! You're promoting collectivism! You're banished from the Gulch
32 matches
Mail list logo
