On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 12:01:15AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
> software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit
> claiming copyright infringement on the work or any derivative forfeits
> all right to the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:18:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>>On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:55PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
>>>
Are there any other examples of restrictions placed on open-source licenses
that Debian has had to deal with
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:33:59PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > I don't think many people are seriously advocating that the DFSG only
> > applies to restrictions made under copyright law.
>
> In that thread, several people suggested that a restriction such as "You
> may not use this logo, or an
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:40:53PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-08 16:26]:
> > I want to know if i can use the trademark "Debian" on the name of a
> > project that i've started , "Debian Hardened" which i want to see as
> > an offic
[ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ]
Hi!
Thanks, for your response:
> > Is there some other "as free as public domain" license? I don't like
> > to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\
>
> I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially
> says the s
On 2004-09-15 04:14:40 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Does that really matter, if the condition for termination is
acceptable?
If the patent license is terminated, the only reason to care whether
the copyright license terminates as well is if you intend to ignore
the
lack of
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:06:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> The first is the case where you were licensed no patents to use the
> software. Hopefully this will be the most common case, as free
> software developers reject software patents. If only the patent
> licence terminates, including the sof
[I think we may be saying the same thing here, but I thought some
clarification was necessary.]
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You can never take someone else's work, place restrictions on it and
> sell it.
You can if the license allows it.
> if a work is in the public domain, nobod
O Martes, 14 de Setembro de 2004 ás 22:18:46 +0200, Isaac Clerencia escribía:
> I think this can be illegal (also team names?).
Yes, it falls under trade mark protection laws. Since team names and logos,
and players' names are big assets for their teams and national leagues (put
Beckam's name in
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 11:56, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Martes, 14 de Setembro de 2004 ás 22:18:46 +0200, Isaac Clerencia
escribía:
> I'd remove the names (i.e. change them to other, innocuous names) even
> without asking as I know the answer beforehand.
I've uploaded a new package without
On 2004-09-15 09:31:43 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:06:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
The first is the case where you were licensed no patents to use the
software. [...]
(This much doesn't seem too convincing.)
Oh well, it seems a forseeable reasonably
Andrew Suffield writes:
> Long-standing conclusions, summarised:
>
> Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
> whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
> any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get
> contract-like
Bernhard R. Link writes:
> * Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040915 15:00]:
> > On the other hand, I always thought free software was about protecting
> > users, not patent litigants who are supposed to already have working
> > forms of the patented invention.
>
>
> What about people selling
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:42:45PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> If a software discriminates against people wanting to sell or even
> only those selling free software as binary-only, it is also non-free.
If by "discriminates against" you mean "prevents distribution by",
then you are correct.
I
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 12:01:15AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
>> software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit
>> claiming copyright infringement on the wor
> > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
> > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
> > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
>
> You can take MIT-licensed software and sell it to people without providing
> source,
Hi!
> > Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told,
> > that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about
> > my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the
> > same rights *as* public domain.
> Has been proposed, but since P
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This isn't claiming that the works of Alice or Bob are infringing
> > copyright; it's claiming that Charlie is infringing copyright.
> > Neither Alice nor Bob face license termination for each other's
> > work for suin
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > An elementary point of Free Software is to protect the rights of the
> > users, not excluding "bad" ones. (Or will GPL3 have a section
> > termination the licence if you breach any FSF copyright?)
>
> forfeits the right to distribute the code at all"
Hi,
Harald Geyer wrote:
If you are right then I need to reword the license such that the user
can choose which jurisdictions concept of public domain he likes to
use. Would that still be a valid license?
I have to fold on that one; I'm not an experience d-legal'er. But I hope
someone else can a
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This isn't claiming that the works of Alice or Bob are infringing
>> > copyright; it's claiming that Charlie is infringing copyright.
>> > Neither Alice nor Bob face lic
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> > A) If "you" are Alice and sue Charlie for patent infringement, and he
> >has complied with your open patent license, he can use that license
> >as a defense.
>
> You left out the interesting case -- Alice sues Charlie for patent
> infringement, and he has
Last month, Mark Hymers wrote:
>I'm currently working on packaging IFRIT (a piece of data visualization
>software which uses VTK and QT). I've been auditing all of the source
>files to check their licenses before I finish off the packaging and
>apart from a couple of small issues (small files not
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But that's where patents differ from copyright -- they have no concept
> of derivative works, only of protected methods. So if you sue
> claiming that the implementation in Charlie's is bad, you're also
> claiming the implemen
On Wed, 15, Sep, 2004 at 03:23:39PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke thus..
> upstream claims to be releasing it under the GPL or the QPL, but
> with a blatantly GPL-incompatible proviso against generating any
> income with the software:
>
>IFRIT is distributed under the terms of GNU Public Lice
On Wed, 15, Sep, 2004 at 09:54:24PM +0100, Mark Hymers spoke thus..
> I'll take this up with upstream immediately and report back to
> debian-legal. Thanks for spotting this.
Upstream has (very promptly, I must say) removed the clause from the
website. Hope that solves all the problems with the
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:00:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > Long-standing conclusions, summarised:
> >
> > Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
> > whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
> > any reaso
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:00:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield writes:
> >
> > > Long-standing conclusions, summarised:
> > >
> > > Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
> > > whatever else might interfere with distribut
On 2004-09-14 23:38:26 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray writes:
The OSI lists no licences as "free".
While pedantically true, I claim this is irrelevant on the basis of
the similarity between the Open Source Definition and the DFSG. The
only significant difference is that
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:20:10PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Anything that requires a contract-like construct, rather than a simple
> license, is probably non-free. DFSG-free licenses give things to the
> licensee, not to the copyright holder. They are not a trade (although
> the grant of per
Harald Geyer wrote:
there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License:
* It is an enumerate style license, which means that
- you might forget something
- it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying
you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what
Hi,
El mié, 15-09-2004 a las 09:35, Sven Luther escribió:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:40:53PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-08 16:26]:
> > > I want to know if i can use the trademark "Debian" on the name of a
> > > project that i
* Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040915 15:00]:
> On the other hand, I always thought free software was about protecting
> users, not patent litigants who are supposed to already have working
> forms of the patented invention.
What about people selling non-free software, builders of nuclear b
* Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040915 17:12]:
> (Your choice whether that describes you or an item you omitted. If
> you want to make a serious attempt to apply DFSG #5 or #6 to patent
> termination, I'm listening, but please craft your argument so that it
> does not classify the GPL as non-
Bernhard R. Link writes:
> * Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040915 17:12]:
> > (Your choice whether that describes you or an item you omitted. If
> > you want to make a serious attempt to apply DFSG #5 or #6 to patent
> > termination, I'm listening, but please craft your argument so that it
>
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An elementary point of Free Software is to protect the rights of the
> users, not excluding "bad" ones. (Or will GPL3 have a section
> termination the licence if you breach any FSF copyright?)
RMS is quoted as saying "Misusing a GPL-covered program pe
Harald Geyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
>> > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
>> > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
>>
>> You can take MIT-licensed software an
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:32:27AM +0200, Harald Geyer wrote:
> [ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ]
Please set your Mail-Followup-To mail header.
> * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
> it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
>
Hi,
Harald Geyer wrote:
Yes, I know the MIT-License and it is the option if there are any
objections against my draft.
However there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License:
* You are forced to include the original copyright notice, in
whatever "substantial portions of the Software"
David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Names of people are (curiously) less protected. It's probably
> defendable to use players' names in a game, but (at least in the
> US) it would likely attract annoying lawyers, too. I wouldn't
> recommend it. But then, I morally feel celebrities deserve the
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 01:42:03AM -0700, tom said
> Maybe I should know much about buld_deb packaging, but from what I can
> read from mozilla [0], dealing with logos and trademark are allowed if
> there is no change in the code. Building a .deb is a change of the
> code, or is just an adaptation
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:59:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:53:55PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > This whole "consensus" nonsense is just an excuse to discard any
> > argument without responding to it. Note how it is only ever advanced
> > by people who want to d
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:14:40PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*,
> I see absolutely no reason why you should have any rights to the work,
> since you are trying to eliminate the rights of others to the work. I
> can understand
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:20:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett 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
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> No, you did that when you invented it and filed for a patent. It's
> *already* your own proprietary software, and you're going to the
> courts to get that enforced.
>
> Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
> software under a copyleft, wit
45 matches
Mail list logo
