In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glenn Maynard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
This isn't a legal principle, it's an assertion. Why is my grant of
copyright license revokable? I just can't find comparisons to "permission
to trespass" very convincing. (I've also heard things along the lines
of "allow
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> I've heard all sorts of arguements in IRC that drawing the line in a good
> way is very hard. I believe that. However, what I want to know is, if this
> went to court, would things like the intention and degree of dependency be
>
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:33:51PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > However, it seems that a similar possible problem exists with contracts:
> > > that they're not binding without consideration.
> >
> > "Consideration is as much a matter of form as seal." Any benefit to the
> > licensee, howev
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:54:55 -0500 John Cowan wrote:
> You are already distributing code under the MPL license, which is a
> contract, in debian-stable main.
IIRC, the Mozilla relicensing is underway (though a bit slowly). Debian
is therefore waiting for any NPL/MPL-related issues to be solved.
4 matches
Mail list logo
