Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 17:23, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following
clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they have requested
that this License and all related documents be drafted in English. Les
parties o
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:23:55 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Choice of law clause. This is regarded as fine, IIRC.
>
> Under the proviso that the law chosen is not in itself an issue.
Of course.
Anyway I agree with you that it's better to state it explicitly...
--
| GnuPG Key I
Sorry if this is a really silly/of_topic question.
I am a LFS user and I want to use free Linux kernel for my GNU/Linux
system, by free I mean which is free from binaries and non-free code.
Does such a kernel exists ?
I mean some kind of patch.
--
``If only matrix was Free Software who n
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people
>> to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the
>> legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for some
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
>
> > If there are no active patents covering the software,
>
> Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
> enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in
> respect
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:08:11 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote:
> 1a: Does applying a 'choice of language' clause to everyone make a
> license non-free (or is it acceptable the same way a 'choice of law'
> clause is)?
Perhaps it does not make a license non-free.
> 1b: Is a 'choice of language' clause
Lex Spoon wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
>> > must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that
>> > you perform in some way, e.g. by distributing source code.
>>
>> Actually, as far
.jareeN. wrote:
>
> Sorry if this is a really silly/of_topic question.
It's not.
> I am a LFS user and I want to use free Linux kernel for my GNU/Linux
> system, by free I mean which is free from binaries and non-free code.
> Does such a kernel exists ?
>
> I mean some kind of patch.
At the
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Fr, den 25.06.2004 schrieb Gerfried Fuchs um 12:11:
>> 3) You may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes
>> reselling the game as an individual item.
>>
>> Doesn't this violate point 1 of the DFSG?
>
> AFAIK it is ok, as long as it is allowe
Romain Francoise wrote:
> Package: jftpgw
> Version: 0.13.5-1
> Severity: serious
>
> The jftpgw package currently distributed in Debian has two license
> problems:
>
> 1. The source contains a file named snprintf.c that doesn't contain any
>copyright notice or license header. It appears to
Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>> It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
>> it to mean.
>
> Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic ("Words mean
> exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less."). I hope
> that a lic
Michael Poole wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
>
>> Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
>> of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
>>
>> It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
>
> The usual contention is that ha
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Is it possible for an upstream to change license from a BSD-old to GPL?
> Consider the hypothesis that the product is a derivative work with a
> few old contributors. I see no reasons to do not relicense after adding
> a credits note as required in the BSD license.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO
> > EVENT SHALL APPLE OR ANY CONTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL,
> > SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING
> > TO THIS L
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:19:56PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 17:23, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > > > Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following
> > > > clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they have requested
> > > > that this Licen
Ryan Rasmussen wrote:
> Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
No. It seems pretty close, but there are a few deadly clauses. Gah, this
is a lawyerly monstrosity
> ---
> APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE
On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 09:04, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Nah, this is just a reference to a particularly stupid tenet of their law.
> >
> > It's not "particularly stupid" to expect that, if you sign a contract,
> > it should be in a language you understand.
>
> It's stupid that this clause has
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:08:11 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote:
>>3: Does applying a Free term to a subset of people discriminate
>>against them?
>
> I'm undecided about this.
>
> My first feeling is that it would still be a discrimination.
> Why do some people get more rights jus
On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 21:34, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I had been working on cleansing it, but have gotten depressed by the hostile
> response from some of the Debian kernel maintainers and the dead silence
> from upstream.
>From memory, there's someone on lkml who has a "list" of the non-free
bit
19 matches
Mail list logo
