Hi,
for the FreeMind package, which I am maintaining as a non-DD, upstream has
planned to use a new logotype, for which I couldn't find any license
information (see [1]). Discussing with upstream, I suggested to apply
the GPL license as the rest of the program has, against which they argued
that t
Ken Arromdee writes:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
>> It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
>> by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
>> relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
>
> I'm not sure that's a distinction
Hello,
I'm preparing a debian package for a math library (rheolef) which uses
the GPL license v2. Some executables that also distributed with it
depend on `bamg` application which can be found at
http://www-rocq1.inria.fr/gamma/cdrom/www/bamg/eng.htm.
This application doesn't seem to have an
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> For that reason, A non-lawyer is equally suited to point out potential
> wording problems in a contract as a lawyer.
I don't believe anybody has ever disputed this. It would be kinda
silly, since that's what we do around here all the t
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
> >> by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
> >> relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
> > I'm not sure that's a distinction. After all, a fe
Ken Arromdee writes:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
>> >> It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
>> >> by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
>> >> relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
>> > I'm not sure that's a di
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The law that creates the warranty also allows its disclaimer; it
> allows a developer to refuse the cost that the law incurs. In that
> way, the disclaimer reverts the cost balance to its state in the
> absense of the law. This is distinct fro
Michael K. Edwards writes:
> Anyway, as to personal jurisdiction -- this is a legal principle lost
> in the mists of time, adapted in modern times to fit the realities of
> commerce without personal contact. A "choice of venue" clause is not
> In sum, trying to shoehorn any of the warranty / liab
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
> about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
> non-free restrictions or requirements on licensees. Argument from
> authority will not change that
Michael K. Edwards writes:
> On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
>> about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
>> non-free restrictions or requirements on licensees. Argument from
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have not meant to equate DFSG freeness with what can go into Debian,
> but DFSG freeness is an important threshold issue. If my messages
> misled on that point, I apologize. There are other factors to
> consider, but this thread was original
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:06:54 + (UTC) Michael Janssen wrote:
> Francesco Poli winstonsmith.info> writes:
>
> > I've just re-read the relevant threads, and I do not agree that the
> > two above mentioned clauses are the only issues.
> [...]
> > Consequently, the issues to be solved are, at le
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:56:44 +0200 (MEST) Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for the FreeMind package, which I am maintaining as a non-DD, upstream
> has planned to use a new logotype, for which I couldn't find any
> license information (see [1]). Discussing with upstream, I suggested
> to app
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:46:50PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
> > about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
> > non-free restrictions o
On 8/1/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Myself, I would no more redistribute a peer-to-peer client offered
> under a license like BitTorrent's than I would play Russian Roulette
> with a loaded Uzi. But YMMV.
I suppose I should explain that. I may or may not have used one
BitT
[I resend this message since I *again* got struck by bug#302264:
I apologize for forgetting to avoid lines beginning with "From "...]
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:56:44 +0200 (MEST) Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for the FreeMind package, which I am maintaining as a non-DD, upstream
> has plann
On 8/1/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you believe that posting your life story to debian-legal qualifies
> as "grounding in real-world law"?
It qualifies as a reminder to anyone who's considering taking me
seriously that they're doing so based on the arguments I raise and
whate
17 matches
Mail list logo
