On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that first-sale and digital goods maps very well... I'm really
> uncertain as to how the courts have fallen on the issue. I don't see how
> first sale authorizes me to download (and hence make a copy) of source code
> to which I
On 7/13/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am so confused. #1 allows a licensor to impose all manner of terms without
> giving actual notice to the licensee, whereas #2 at least gives the licensee
> a chance. The warranty provisions are a great example. The GPL rejects all
> implied
[Please retitle threads when appropriate... we've left the kde topic
some time ago.]
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> But no one has presented a cogent argument about how mandating that
> people actually agree to the terms of the GPL poses a threat to the
> DFSG.
It's quite simple; I'm
Hi,
I've prepared a package of the Python SNMP framework [1], and my
sponsor asked me if I had checked it's license's [2] DFSG-freeness
with you guys. So this is what I'm doing now. :)
The interesting section, which is the only one differing from the
BSD-style license [3], is as follows:
THIS
On Thursday 14 July 2005 12:56 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
> [Please retitle threads when appropriate... we've left the kde topic
> some time ago.]
Technically true... but I'm still trying to make the argument that calling
the GPL a "License Agreement" is neither non-free nor a violation of the GPL
On Sunday 10 July 2005 09:53 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 05:51:17PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Glenn, don't you think he's talking about technologically impractical.
> > We all know how easy it is to circumvent click wrap licenses. But you
> > HAVE to agree to the GPL t
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Sunday 10 July 2005 09:53 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 05:51:17PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Glenn, don't you think he's talking about technologically
> > > impractical. We all know how easy it is to circumvent click
> > > wrap licenses. But
On Thursday 14 July 2005 09:16 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> Because it takes away the rights the GPL already gave to the
> recipient: the right to use the software, without having to agree to
> nothing at all.
If you come upon the program on someone else's computer, and that someone else
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> But I'm not talking about USE, I'm talking about the possession of a copy of
> the code. You are not permitted to have a copy of the code without
> permission under the law. Period, end of story, except no substitutions.
Please cit
Microsoft Digital Image Suite Pro v10.0 - $19.95
Macromedia Studio MX 2004 - $54.95
Adobe Photoshop CS2 9.0 - $54.95
Microsoft Office XP Professional with SP2 - $49.95
and much more. at http://replacesoft.com/?a=3331 with fr e e e bonus.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Thursday 14 July 2005 09:46 am, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > But I'm not talking about USE, I'm talking about the possession of a copy
> > of the code. You are not permitted to have a copy of the code without
> > permission under the la
On 7/14/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > But I'm not talking about USE, I'm talking about the possession of a copy of
> > the code. You are not permitted to have a copy of the code without
> > permission under the law.
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 09:16 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > Because it takes away the rights the GPL already gave to the
> > recipient: the right to use the software, without having to
> > agree to nothing at all.
>
> If you come upon the program on someone else's
** Michael K. Edwards ::
> On 7/14/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > But I'm not talking about USE, I'm talking about the
> > > possession of a copy of the code. You are not permitted to
> > > have a copy of the cod
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:09:45AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Yes, I am aware that if you spontaneously HAVE a copy that its not
> infringement, it is the ACT of copying that is infringing. And no, I'm not
> interested in those cases. I am interested in cases where people are running
> apt-g
On 7/14/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip stuff where I agree with Humberto]
> Moreover, caselaw down here (and, IIRC, in the USofA too) says that
> the copies necessary to make a computer program run (from CD to HD,
> including installation, from HD to RAM, from RAM to
On 7/14/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ** Michael K. Edwards ::
> > Sean's a little bit right here (is that like a little bit
> > pregnant?), in that copies made without authorization are in
> > principle subject to seizure and forfeiture no matter who is
> > presently ho
On Thursday 14 July 2005 11:56 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> He affirmed that one has to agree to the GPL to possess a copy of a
> GPL'd program.
WHAT?! No, never. Possession is not the issue, the issue is copying. And I
am not convinced that making an FTP connection and downloading t
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 11:56 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > He affirmed that one has to agree to the GPL to possess a copy
> > of a GPL'd program.
>
> WHAT?! No, never. Possession is not the issue, the issue is
> copying. And I am not convinced that making an F
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I'd really like to return to the question that got us all started. Is
> calling the GPL a "License Agreement" a bug? Apparently my "you have to
> agree to the GPL anyway" theory has gotten people all worked up... so,
> obviously that's no
On Thursday 14 July 2005 01:00 pm, Patrick Herzig wrote:
> On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I'd really like to return to the question that got us all started.
> > Is calling the GPL a "License Agreement" a bug? Apparently my "you have
> > to agree to the GPL anyway" the
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 11:56 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > He affirmed that one has to agree to the GPL to possess a copy of a
> > GPL'd program.
>
> WHAT?! No, never. Possession is not the issue, the issue is copying. And I
> am
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:15:52PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> am not convinced that making an FTP connection and downloading the material
> from a licensed distributor does not constitute copying, thus requiring
> permission.
How can this hypothetical downloader make a copy of something he doe
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:53:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 12:56 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > [Please retitle threads when appropriate... we've left the kde topic
> > some time ago.]
>
> Technically true... but I'm still trying to make the argument that calling
> th
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not the 19th century... the specific mechanics of a form are not an
> issue like they once were. An agreement does not need to be written, or
> shook on, or any of that signed, sealed, and delivered stuff.
Please note that I included
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 12:56 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > But no one has presented a cogent argument about how mandating that
> > > people actually agree to the terms of the GPL poses a threat to the
> > > D
> > * License : The Open Group Test Suite License
>
> I'm not optimistic about this licence being DFSG-free.
Hi,
I was wondering if Debian-legal could offer any insight on this matter.
I searched the mailing list archives, and found no explicit discussion
of this license. The only potent
On Thursday 14 July 2005 02:28 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 July 2005 12:56 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > > But no one has presented a cogent argument about how mandating that
> > > > people ac
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:49:42 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I think what he's saying is roughly: 1: if A has no license to
> distribute the software, puts it on a server, and B downloads it, why
> is B guilty of copyright infringement if it's A who lacked a license
> to distribute; or 2: why is B *n
On 7/14/05, Patrick Herzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is not the 19th century... the specific mechanics of a form are not an
> > issue like they once were. An agreement does not need to be written, or
> > shook on, or any of that sign
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We're discussing two different things then. If the click wrap can be
> > removed from the program, then I submit that it is not mandatory, nor
> > a requirement of "actual manifestation of assent." It's merely a
> > dialog box that the author
On Thursday 14 July 2005 03:21 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:49:42 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I think what he's saying is roughly: 1: if A has no license to
> > distribute the software, puts it on a server, and B downloads it, why
> > is B guilty of copyright infringement i
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Possibly... I really don't know. I think the question is worth exploring. I
> don't think that Specht v. Netscape is helpful here because it was a contract
> relating to terms outside of copyright and had a whole bunch of interesting
> things
> After researching implied warranties in the US a little bit, I know
> little more about that particular question, other than that they vary
> wildly from state to state in the absence of federal regulation of a
> particular industry -- but I do know that I never want to own an RV, I
> don't trust
In Texas, on the other hand, the scope for a court to find an implied
warranty of merchantability is far broader. Here's a quote from
Ameristar Jet Charter v. Signal Composites (
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0011270cv0.html ):
Under Texas law the warranty of merchantability is i
One more quickie, this time Footnote 3 of Cipollone v. Yale & Davco (
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/1st/991494.html ):
Our conclusion that there is no breach of warranty of merchantability
justifies summary judgment on Cipollone's negligence claims against
Yale as well. See Hayes v. A
What the heck, let's pull in another state in another circuit, Iowa
this time: Brunsman v. DeKalb Swine (
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/971135p.html ). This
opinion points to the sections of Iowa Code relevant to warranty
disclaimers, and states: "Under Iowa law, a court consideri
Quite the string of self-replies. Sorry about that. Didn't expect to
turn up a run of interesting precedents with "merchantability" in
various circuits after "implied warranty" was such a dud in the Ninth.
In short, I begin to fear that _any_ GPL contributor who isn't
shielded by having acted in
Once more unto the breach, so to speak.
I wrote:
> But if a Linux distro qualifies as a "consumer
> good", other laws may apply -- conspicuously California's Song-Beverly
> Consumer Warranty Act (
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/1792-1795.7.html ). I am by
> no means convinced that th
39 matches
Mail list logo
