Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's take just one example. The Mozilla Foundation is very keen that
> nothing ships as "Firefox" which contains spyware. How would you define
> "spyware" in a watertight way for the trademark license document?
It looks like it's called "Software Up
Often on this list it has been stated that "Choice of venue" makes a
license non-free, why is it so ?
Is it because it undermines the legal strength of the license itself, or
because it somehow conflicts with the DFSG, or some other reason ?
Thanks
Glenn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:39:12AM +1100, Glenn Leslie McGrath wrote:
> Often on this list it has been stated that "Choice of venue" makes a
> license non-free, why is it so ?
> Is it because it undermines the legal strength of the license itself, or
> because it somehow conflicts with the DFSG, o
Glenn Leslie McGrath writes:
> Often on this list it has been stated that "Choice of venue" makes a
> license non-free, why is it so ?
>
> Is it because it undermines the legal strength of the license itself, or
> because it somehow conflicts with the DFSG, or some other reason ?
There are sever
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For this reason, Debian should reject choice of venue clauses as non-free.
> At best, they give an underdog copyright holder a small advantage while
> enforcing his rights, but at worst they give a hostile copyright holder a
> large advantage while perse
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:50:16PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If a large US corporation violates my copyright license, I'm likely to
> stand a significantly better chance if I can sue them in the UK. To some
> extent, I think it comes down to intent - if people are introducing
> these clauses
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For this reason, Debian should reject choice of venue clauses as non-free.
At best, they give an underdog copyright holder a small advantage while
enforcing his rights, but at worst they give a hostile copyright holder a
large advant
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:50:16PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > For this reason, Debian should reject choice of venue clauses as non-free.
> > At best, they give an underdog copyright holder a small advantage while
> > enforcing his rights, but at worst they give a hostile copyright holder a
Hello.
After a discussion on debian-user-spanish about the GPL, I found about
this package in contrib:
Package: ida
Depends: [...] libmotif3
AFAIK, this violates the GPL license of ida. Am I missing anything?
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 06:16:06 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:50:16PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that the advantage to the copyright holder is small.
> > If a large US corporation violates my copyright license, I'm likely to
> >
On 03 Feb 2005 08:28:36 -0500
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are several arguments why choice of venue violates the DFSG.
>
> The first, relatively weak (since it is not clearly based in the DFSG)
> is that having to defend yourself in a foreign jurisdiction acts as an
> imprope
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 12:25:50AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Would a software with the following statement and without any further
> copyright or licensing notice be free?
>
> "Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved."
>
> Any issues with that?
This is definitely not a license at a
Glenn L McGrath writes:
> On 03 Feb 2005 08:28:36 -0500
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are several arguments why choice of venue violates the DFSG.
> >
> > The first, relatively weak (since it is not clearly based in the DFSG)
> > is that having to defend yourself in a fo
Does anyone on this list know about or where/who to find info about
software copyright?
My specific question is this:
If I wrote a web program for my company that was being used on a
government project and then I left the company and wanted to completely
rewrite the code (it will do the same thi
Sorry, I mean Copyright. :)
Does anyone on this list know about or where/who to find info about
software copyright?
My specific question is this:
If I wrote a web program for my company that was being used on a
government project and then I left the company and wanted to completely
rewrite the c
Ralph Crongeyer writes:
> Does anyone on this list know about or where/who to find info about
> software copyright?
> My specific question is this:
> If I wrote a web program for my company that was being used on a
> government project and then I left the company and wanted to
> completely rewrite
Hi,
I would appreciate a thumbs up or down on the dfsg compliance of the
attached license before I put time into packaging. I suspect there might
be issues with these requirements:
iii)You are not permitted to change the ECW file format.
iv) You are not permitted to use Software Product f
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 01:46:42PM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
> On 03 Feb 2005 08:28:36 -0500
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are several arguments why choice of venue violates the DFSG.
> >
> > The first, relatively weak (since it is not clearly based in the DFSG)
> > i
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 05:44:44PM -0500, Steve Halasz wrote:
> I would appreciate a thumbs up or down on the dfsg compliance of the
> attached license before I put time into packaging. I suspect there might
> be issues with these requirements:
>
> iii)You are not permitted to change the ECW f
> > Would a software with the following statement and without any further
> > copyright or licensing notice be free?
> >
> > "Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved."
> >
> > Any issues with that?
>
> This is definitely not a license at all.
Indeed it is not a license as there shouldn't exist
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:11:15AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Glenn L McGrath writes:
> > hmm, so if parts of the license arent enforcable in the licencees
> > jurisdiction, then a "choice of venue" clause could be used to drag
> > people into a jurisdiction that they are enforcable...
>
> Yes,
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 12:31:59PM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 22:50:01 +
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I do not see how a free software developer trying to squeeze money out
> > of a megacorporation, and having to spend a bit extra to travel to
> >
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 12:31:59PM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
> Your want to protect end users by make it harder for the individual
> copyright holders to defend their work.
You could say the same thing about police-your-neighbor licenses, which
say "if you become aware of a possible license vi
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 01:04:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > A licence is practically meaningless is the copyright holder doesnt
> > have the resources to defend it.
>
> Thanks for classifying all my work as meaningless. I'll just go and revoke
> the licences on all my stuff, since they're
Santiago Vila wrote:
> After a discussion on debian-user-spanish about the GPL, I found about
> this package in contrib:
>
> Package: ida
> Depends: [...] libmotif3
>
> AFAIK, this violates the GPL license of ida. Am I missing anything?
Assuming ida doesn't have any license exceptions, then no. F
Steve Halasz wrote:
> I would appreciate a thumbs up or down on the dfsg compliance of the
> attached license before I put time into packaging. I suspect there might
> be issues with these requirements:
>
> iii)You are not permitted to change the ECW file format.
> iv) You are not permitted
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Suppose I have a program Foo which uses either GNU readline. I can
> > compile Foo against GNU readline (but not link it), and distribute the
> > result. I can also distribute GNU readline separately. But I can not
> > distribut
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > You have made a very convincing argument that "required to install" is
> > too broad. My criteria is "required to run".
>
> I've showed that your interpretation of 'required to
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > When Debian puts Eclipse into main, Debian is distributing Eclipse to
> > be used with Kaffe. When it is in contrib, Debian is distributing
> > Eclipse to be used by something outside of main.
>
> To the extent the first part
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:48:32 -0500
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, of course not. I don't mind if copyright holders make their
> copyright easier to defend--until it comes at an unacceptable cost of
> freedom to licensees. I believe choice of venue (and
> police-your-neighbor) clau
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 04:01:10PM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
> > No, of course not. I don't mind if copyright holders make their
> > copyright easier to defend--until it comes at an unacceptable cost of
> > freedom to licensees. I believe choice of venue (and
> > police-your-neighbor) clauses
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 01:12:33 -0500
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 04:01:10PM +1100, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
> > I never realised the DFSG was so open to interpretation until now.
>
> It must be interpreted, or it is useless. I hope you aren't
> suggesting Debian
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 22:50:01 +
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not see how a free software developer trying to squeeze money out
> of a megacorporation, and having to spend a bit extra to travel to
> their country and do it (before a long and very expensive legal
> battle), is
33 matches
Mail list logo
