On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 10:30:14PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Ryan Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't seem to be getting mail from the BTS on this bug. Anyway, it
> > seemed to me that the Creative Commons licenses would be more
> > appropriate since they were specifically d
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 09:32:46PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> we have bad news for your filesystems :(( it happens that some sections
> of the license are not compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines [0].
Who is Domenico Andreoli? I have not noticed them as a debian-legal
summarise
Roland Stigge wrote:
> (2) Clause 2 also states: 'You may distribute and sublicense the Fonts
> only as a part of and for use with Modified Software, and not as a part
> of or for use with Modified Software that is distributed or sublicensed
> for a fee or for other valuable consideration.'
>
> 2
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 'when such distribution is prohibited by law' - If you're not a US
> citizen, and not in the US, US law does not apply to you, and therefore
> does not prohibit such distribution.
[...]
>
> 'all applicable United States export control laws' - none of th
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Lex Spoon wrote:
> > The clause does not mean it must go into non-US, but the opposite:
> > US servers are already bound by this clause anyway due to federal
> > law. Thus we should distribute it from US servers which already
> > have
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The lawsuit may be completely bogus. The distributors are still
> obligated to defend Apple. I would say that being required to defend
> a company that may be on the other side of the world against frivolous
> lawsuits goes a little too far. A business
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 02:28:01AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> *Sigh* Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The license itself appears to
>> be a violation of the FSF's copyright in the preamble of the GPL; the FSF
>> doesn't grant any right to modify that preamble, disgu
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sami Liedes wrote:
> >[Cc:'d to the reiser4progs maintainers. Please Cc: me when replying,
> >I'm not subscribed to -legal.]
> >> Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
> >> fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating
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
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> To my knowledge, 'don't break the laws that apply to you' clauses are
> not considered non-free (though they are GPL-incompatible, being an
> 'additional restriction'), as these restrictions apply anyway, whether
> they are stated in the license or not; they only restrict r
Lex Spoon wrote:
> Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 'when such distribution is prohibited by law' - If you're not a US
>> citizen, and not in the US, US law does not apply to you, and therefore
>> does not prohibit such distribution.
> [...]
>>
>> 'all applicable United States export c
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
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually, they're not entirely NOPs. They mean "if you break the law, then
> in addition to the legal penalties, we can *also* terminate your license".
> We don't accept clauses stronger than that,
And, at least the last couple of years, we have us
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
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
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 02:53:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL
>^^
> preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough
>
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> we have bad news for your filesystems :(( it happens that some sections
>> of the license are not compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines [0].
> Who is Domenico Andreoli? I have not noticed them as a debian-legal
> summariser before. Who asked for th
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
On 2004-04-25 21:57:08 +0100 Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A little bit of searching would have given you "Package
(co)-maintainer of
reiserfs stuff".
I didn't have a full connection at the time and it wasn't showing in
apt-cache. Sorry for asking if you will take offence :P
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 02:53:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL
>>^^
>> preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use a
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 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
"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The lawsuit may be completely bogus. The distributors are still
> > obligated to defend Apple. I would say that being required to defend
> > a company that may be on the other side of the world against frivolous
24 matches
Mail list logo
