Hi,
Please comment on whether this license satisfies the DFSG. It looks to me
like it does.
http://www.osl.iu.edu/research/mtl/LICENSE.php3
Thanks. Please cc me, I'm not subscribed.
Faheem.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 01:33:59AM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> Please comment on whether this license satisfies the DFSG. It looks to me
> like it does.
>
> http://www.osl.iu.edu/research/mtl/LICENSE.php3
License text (without commentary) follows. Note that the actual license
contains HTML for
"Any disputes arising out of this Agreement or LICENSEE'S use of the
software at any time shall be resolved by the courts of the state of
Indiana. LICENSEE hereby consents to the jurisdiction of the Indiana
courts and waives the right to challenge the jurisdiction thereof in any
dispute arising out
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 08:14:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I think you mean "Any lawsuit claiming patent infringement in this work
>> revokes your license". Claiming that the two are equivilent is missing
>> the point entirely. One is a license
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's clear
> that the OSI has made a good and, in my opinion, successful effort to clean
> it up. It's neither fair nor correct to say that nothing has changed.
It's sti
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:49:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This is choice of venue; it means that, if the licensor wants, he can
> force me to trek out to Indiana at whim to defend myself in court,
> overriding the normal legal mechanisms for choosing a suitable venue.
> I believe most of d-l
> > "This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer
> > exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the
> > date You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
> > against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work
> > infringe
Raul Miller writes:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:49:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > This is choice of venue; it means that, if the licensor wants, he can
> > force me to trek out to Indiana at whim to defend myself in court,
> > overriding the normal legal mechanisms for choosing a suitable v
On 2004-09-13 14:15:11 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's an example of a "self-defence action" where the license
terminates?
Here:
You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
AIUI, cross-claims and counterclaims are normal self-defence when you
are co
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:36:06PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> > (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the
> > DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and
> > movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.)
>
> Why does Debian than distribute
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 05:21:36PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
> make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
> everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
> only have the 'binar
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Version 2.1 is upon us. It can be found at
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php
[...]
> The Dissident test is under question and does not appear to have
> broad support within Debian as an additional DFSG guideline, so the
> objection to it
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's clear
> > that the OSI has made a good and, in my opinion, successful effort to clean
> > it up.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 05:13:02PM +0100, Adam Sampson wrote:
> >From that license:
> | If You distribute copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work,
> | You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain
> | the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.
>
>
As well, the fact that is is framed as a "license agreement" invokes
contract law instead of pure copyright... in the U.S., contract law is
different in every state and some even have gap-filling measures
which, in a court of law, would add things to the license that even
the licensor didn't intend
Could you please not quote upside-down?
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:35:05PM -0700, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> As well, the fact that is is framed as a "license agreement" invokes
> contract law instead of pure copyright... in the U.S., contract law is
> different in every state and some even have
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:56:53 -0400, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:35:05PM -0700, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> > As well, the fact that is is framed as a "license agreement" invokes
> > contract law instead of pure copyright... in the U.S., contract law is
> >
* Ingo Ruhnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [13/09/04, 17:21:36]:
> > It depends on the specific case. In my opinion, almost all of those
> > media types actually have a prefered form for modification.
>
> Depends, I have hardly seen any .xcf, .blend or source formats for
> .ogg/.mp3 in the wild, in this
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 03:22:46PM -0700, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> I wouldn't call it an exaggeration in the sense that they are binding
> anyone in the world who licenses their code to a law and
> jurisprudence in one state in the US. Anyway, it's clear that it is
> not-free... we could deba
Kai Blin wrote:
> * Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12/09/04, 11:42:42]:
>>Switching from the GPL to a GPL-incompatible license would probably
>>cause major problems to any other GPL-compatible work that would like to
>>reuse your work (in any way that creates a derivative work).
>>Creating bar
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
[snip]
I believe this license is non-free in multiple ways, and is another
unfortunate example of "license NIH". There will be some people who
don't agree with the non-freeness of some of the above, but I think the
lack of permission to distribute bin
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 09:00:09PM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> BTW, what does `another unfortunate example of "license NIH"' refer to?
"not invented here"; people writing their own licenses, or modifying
them, instead of using existing, well-understood licenses. It's a cause
of license prolifera
On Sep 13, 2004, at 17:56, Glenn Maynard wrote:
"Send me $10 for every copy made" and "no redistribution
or modification of any kind" are restrictions I'd call "as non-free as
it gets";
Most EULA's can do *far* better than those in the non-freeness contest.
A lot, I think, rise to the level
quick summary: not free. Contaminates other software, restrictions on
modification, restrictions on use, insane liability problems,
restrictions on distribution, choice of venue, patent termination,
restrictions on unrelated actions by licensor.
In addition, software distributed under this lic
On September 13, 2004 11:28 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2004, at 09:13, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:49:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >> This is choice of venue; it means that, if the licensor wants, he can
> >> force me to trek out to Indiana at whim to def
On Sep 13, 2004, at 09:13, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:49:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is choice of venue; it means that, if the licensor wants, he can
force me to trek out to Indiana at whim to defend myself in court,
overriding the normal legal mechanisms for choosi
Easy CD & DVD Creator 6 - 29.99
Macromedia Studio MX 2004 - 180.00
McAfee Personal Firewall Plus 2004 v. 5.0 - 20.00
Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 - 40.00
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server - 50.00
Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 - 40.00
Microsoft Money 2004 Standard - 20.00
Borland Delphi 7 Professional -
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:58:17 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically
>> text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to
>> change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that
>> it fits toge
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> The Original (the work's source or resource):
>> A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of
>> its program which the originator provides as the reference for all
>> future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions.
>
> wtf? This de
On 2004-09-13 07:49:01 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] This is choice of venue [...]
Examining a wdiff from the Artistic License: [...]
Thanks for spotting those.
I believe this license is non-free in multiple ways, and is another
unfortunate example of "license NIH". [.
On 2004-09-13 03:39:39 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer
exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the
date
You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim,
against
Licensor or
31 matches
Mail list logo
