On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:15:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> In the world of proprietary software, the copyright holders of that
> software often have large numbers of software patents with which to
> defend themselves. Free Software developers, as you said, do not
> normally have software pat
Looks to be the old Artistic license with the perl-specific parts
removed. That really wants to be replaced by the Clarified Artistic;
the status of the original is at best murky, and it's only free if
certain rather slippery clauses are interpreted in a certain way.
[It's only free for perl becau
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 10:41:50PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> If you want a public-domain-equivalent license, write something like this:
>
> (Some credit goes to Anthony DeRobertis. I've been trying to refine
> this; it would be nice to have a 'standard' one. Ideally we'd get a
> 'sounds
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This idea is a variation on "You may not use this software for
> military applications" and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
> intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may consider them
> to be.
Why is discrimination against people who wa
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This idea is a variation on "You may not use this software for
> > military applications" and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
> > intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may consider them
> > to be.
>
> Wh
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:01:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This idea is a variation on "You may not use this software for
> > military applications" and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
> > intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:41:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Note that there are two kinds of patent clauses floating around:
>
> One says that if you sue the software's authors for *any* patent
> infringement, your license is terminated.
>
> The other says that if you sue claiming that the s
On 2004-09-19 14:41:05 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that there are two kinds of patent clauses floating around:
One says that if you sue the software's authors for *any* patent
infringement, your license is terminated.
The other says that if you sue claiming that the sof
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:41:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > The former is objectionable -- and I think not free -- because the
> > author's alleged patent infringement need not be related to the
> > software. I am not sure why some people think the latter is
> > o
MJ Ray writes:
> On 2004-09-19 14:41:05 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Note that there are two kinds of patent clauses floating around:
> > One says that if you sue the software's authors for *any* patent
> > infringement, your license is terminated.
> > The other says that
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, imagine a license which said any attempt to sue over
Oops, left part out. This should say something like:
Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright
license in question, but terminates on any lawsuit over
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:01:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Why is discrimination against people who want to sue you significantly
>> different to discrimination against people who want to distribute
>> binaries without source? Neither prevents o
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:59:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> somewhat. In a patent case, the property right to the patent existed
> before the "original" software was ever written. For the person who
> wrote the software *after* the invention was patented to try to
> blackmail the inve
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:15:29 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright
> license in question, but terminates on any lawsuit over physical
> property. So if you
Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:15:29 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Imagine a license which is just like the patent-terminating-copyright
>> license in question, but terminates
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>>I think the open use logo itself should be DFSG-free, but it probably
>>should be accompanied by a trademark license. I'll contact SPI to see
>>what needs to be done to change the license, and I've asked Matthew
>>Garrett to discuss the trademark
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:59:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> somewhat. In a patent case, the property right to the patent existed
> >> before the "original" software was ever written. For the person who
> >> wrote the software *after* the invention was patented to try to
> >> bl
On 2004-09-19 16:12:55 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am not sure why we should draw a distinction between patent and
copyright licenses.
Patent law and copyright law are very different things. Further,
patents cannot apply to software in all laws, so having these
non-exist
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it
> is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you
> can't do anything the copyright holder doesn't like).
If so, then the GPL is, too--the c
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict
> the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions.
Trademark law limits what can be done here. Granting a trademark license
(explicitly or implicitly) that allows peopl
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:59:20PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software.
>
> Software patent lawsuits attempting to prevent the use and distribution
> of free software certainly is intrinsically bad for fr
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 08:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software.
> >
> > Software patent lawsuits attempting to prevent the use and distribution
> > of free software certainly is intrinsically bad for free software.
>
> But the proble
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This idea is a variation on "You may not use this software for
>> military applications" and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
>> intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may consider them
>>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:59:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> somewhat. In a patent case, the property right to the patent existed
>> before the "original" software was ever written. For the person who
>> wrote the software *after* the inventi
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:59:20PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software.
Software patent lawsuits attempting to prevent the use and distribution
of free software certainly is intrinsically bad for free software.
> It is unarguably superior that sour
25 matches
Mail list logo
