Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > * To my knowledge, in the U.S, a statement from all the copyright > holders of a work is sufficient to place it in the public domain, if > they want to do so before it would otherwise pass into the public > domain through expiration of copyrigh

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:07:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote: > >Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing > >solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, > >opportunistic bastards

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > but nobody can cite any clear indication of what the legal effect of > such as declaration is: There has been no relevant caselaw. I'm not surprised that there is no relevant caselaw, however, it's common to assume that placing (or dedicating) the work in (o

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I'm not surprised that there is no relevant caselaw, however, it's > common to assume that placing (or dedicating) the work in (or to) the > public domain is enough for the work to be in the public domain. You can assume it. Your assumption is most li

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > That is _not_ necessary in order for the notion to be doubtful. It > pretty much suffices that no statutory mechanism whatsoever exists to > enact that intention, and for the outcome to be both indeterminate > and mostly likely jurisdiction-dependent. The a

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > The absense of a statutory mechanism isn't really at issue here. There > are hosts of contractual forms for which there is no applicable > statute.[1] The US legal system is not statute bound, as it is a > common law system. Allow me to reiterate, then

Re: UnrealIRCd License (Click-Through issue)

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:49:04PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Only in the US. Most countries require the plaintiff actually have a > > case before letting them in the courtroom. > > This isn't really true in the US as well. Frivolous lawsuits in t

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

[Claims of my density willfully exceeding DU snipped] On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > Allow me to reiterate, then, what I believe I've already mentioned > once before: There is also an absence of caselaw. We've established that. I maintain that the absence of caselaw is merely attributab

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:41:37PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > * To my knowledge, in the U.S, a statement from all the copyright > > holders of a work is sufficient to place it in the public domain, if > > they want to do so before it would oth

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Okay. I mostly concur with Don Armstrong's challenges to this, but I > have one more add. IANAL, but, when I posted my analysis of the matter to the OSI license-discuss mailing list, OSI general counsel Larry Rosen replied "You've answered it beaut

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > We've established that. I maintain that the absence of caselaw is > merely attributable to the difficulty of finding an actionable claim. Thus, you have an opinion. > You maintain that it's because dedicating a work to the public domain > is meaningle

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> You maintain that it's because dedicating a work to the public domain >> is meaningless. > > This I did not say. It's either meaningless or meaningfull. I can't quite reconcile the idea of it being both. If you

Re: UnrealIRCd License (Click-Through issue)

* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030901 12:35]: > I'm not really sure what it means to make a "no warranty" clause > "legally binding". If you are trying to avoid getting sued then you > might be better off if you make a sincere effort to inform users of > the potential risks rather than

Is the OSL DFSG free?

Hi! Someone raised an idea on IRC that I might see as valid: Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups")? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite against a OSL lice

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Don Armstrong: > You should be able to find caselaw involving a case where a work was > improperly placed in the public domain (ie, the person dedicating it > to the public isn't the copyright holder,) but as the US system is a > law in action, you'll need to find a case where someone placed the >

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Have you heard of the common law? Oddly enough, I can't help noticing that your caselaw citations are missing. > But Don Armstrong has a point: nobody but the copyright holder has standing > to sue. If a court was convinced that the copyright hol

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a > violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimination Against Persons > or Groups")? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite > against a OSL lice

Re: UnrealIRCd License (Click-Through issue)

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:47:53AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > And: I don't know international law good enough to decide if (and > when) german law is applicable to software in debian. It is certainly > applicable between any german user and me, a german subject and > resident. But almost everyth

Re: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?

Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes (quoting the Sun RPC license): >> but are not authorized to license or >> distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or >> program developed by the user. > > I interpret that to mean that once the RPC

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a > violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimination Against Persons > or Groups")? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite > against a OSL lice

Re: UnrealIRCd License (Click-Through issue)

* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030902 19:20]: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:47:53AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > And: I don't know international law good enough to decide if (and > > when) german law is applicable to software in debian. It is certainly > > applicable between any german us

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 11:49]: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >> Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a >> violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimination Against Persons >> or Groups")? It clear

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

* Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 18:46]: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >> Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a >> violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimination Against Persons >> or Groups")? It clearl

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 18:46]: >> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >>> Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a >>> violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimi

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 1:http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html > > I'm glad the uncredited author has an opinion. The work _is_ credited to Richard Stim, a practicing lawyer specializing in intellectual property and licensing.

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

This is not legal advice. On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > So, what do you recommend for someone who really *wants* to put > something in the public domain? Such as, for instance, my web page > http://twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html ? I haven't seen any > common license which

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:32:42PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > >> This sort of rationale is usually bogus. > >> > >> In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it > >> discriminates against people trying to sell the software. > > > > Thats one of the reason why we put so

Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?

* "Brian T. Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 15:32]: > Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> * Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-02 18:46]: >>> In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it >>> discriminates against people trying to sell the software.

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > > This I did not say. > > It's either meaningless or meaningfull. I can't quite reconcile the > idea of it being both. I didn't say that, either. Don, if you're going to be spending the rest of the month inviti

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> It follows directly from contract law. > > The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from the > fact that "a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to the > public to use, modify, copy, e

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law. > Copyright Law is what grants you the rights to a work which you then > exchange or give away using a License or Contract. Contract Law is what > allows you to establish a legally bind

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:26:27PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from the > > fact that "a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to the > > public to use, modify, copy, etc." would be founded in copyright law, > > rather than cop

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:26:27PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: >> Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law. >> Copyright Law is what grants you the rights to a work which you then >> exchange or give away using a License or Cont

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 09:12:38PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:26:27PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law. > > Copyright Law is what grants you the rights to a work which you then > > exchange or give away

Re: GPL preamble removal

> > And that seems OK to me. Although you can probably restrict yourself to > > the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" part. This brief citation does not show what case he was talking about. If we're talking about use of the GNU GPL as such, the preamble may not be removed. It is, in effect, a sort

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

That begs the question, "are the practical problems of the GFDL basically the same (though of lesser magnitude) than those of the 4-clause BSD license?" :) It's pretty apparent that the majority of the people here disagree with you about that, and have presented many, many, man

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

>This is an illuminating comparison, because the practical problems of >the GFDL (and I won't claim there are none) are basically of the same >kind (though of a lower magnitude) than those of the 4-clause BSD ^^^ Replace this with "greater m

Re: GNU/LinEx, Debian, and the GNU FDL

Branden Robinson wrote: I have seven questions for you based on this episode: Branden is trying to make innocent things look bad; shame on him. Given the interview itself and the note I added later, both my views and the events involving GNU/LinEx are clear enough. So I won't answer his ques