Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Florian Weimer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
> >later" under the GPL version 3?
>
> Actually, YOU CAN'T.
>
> The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the per
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I *explicitly* wrote this disclaimer in my comment message ("The usual
> > disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD."):
>
> Uh, no, you didn't:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg002
Anthony W. Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IANAL - so I can't be certain - but it would not surprise me in the
> slightest if the majority of British lawyers were NOT members of the
> relevant bar association.
>
> I think bar association members are called barristers - and most lawyers
>
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
> > It does not even seem to express certainty...
>
> (I am not a professor of English)
Clearly.
> The usage of "I am afraid that " in English has changed.
[...]
Steve Langasek wrote:
Whatever happened to the First Amendment?
Do you also count on First Amendment protection against charges of libel,
slander, and false advertising?
That's a false analogy. All of the things in your list are done with
intent to mislead. In the examples we are considering
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
And as I see it, if I say "My program is licenced under GPLv3 with the
following exceptions ...", if the user ignores the exception, they have
broken the terms I set for them to use the program, and the GPL doesn't
apply, so they can't take advantage of the clause all
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's a thought experiment:
>
> Suppose I wrote some software, and wrote it to a CD, erasing all other
> copies. I then wrote out, in longhand, the text of the GPLv3 on paper,
> and attached it to the CD, and gave it to you. This software would
> clea
Ben Finney wrote:
No. This is no more true than to say that, because the GPL, BSD, and
Artistic licenses accompany software in Debian, that those licenses
apply to all of that software.
The only thing you've clearly done is distribute a license text and a
CD. The license text doesn't apply as th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is "I am afraid it cannot" a definite answer?
It does not even seem to express certainty...
(I am not a professor of English)
The usage of "I am afraid that " in English has chang
Hello!
This is not Debian related, but I think you are the ones who know best about
licensing issues.
In 2004 the sourcecode to Jagged Alliance 2 was released:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/16/0343250
It comes with a license which I have a hard time to fully understand:
http:/
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Kellogg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Monday 02 July 2007 01:57:07 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Are you saying that somebody has decided to give the US government the
right to rule the world?
No, but the US government has the right to enforce its laws and
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco
Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
discussed.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, many jurisdictions implicitly
or explicitly f
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
(The only non-native speakers who I won't cut slack are those who start
preaching their interpretation of English as The One True Meaning over
objections from Englishmen. ;-) )
I presume you mean Americans :-))
Regards,
--
MJR/
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gervase Markham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
And as I see it, if I say "My program is licenced under GPLv3 with
the following exceptions ...", if the user ignores the exception, they
have broken the terms I set for them to use the program
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:09:44 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francesco
> Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:21:30 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> >
> >> This date is NOT arbitrary. It is AFTER this clause was first
> >> discussed.
> >>
>
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Sklyarov did what he did AT HOME IN RUSSIA. It was the company he worked
> for that marketed it in America.
And Sklyarov who traveled to the US and (at the time) allegedly broke
the law in a demonstration while in the US. [The insanity of the
anti
Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not Debian related, but I think you are the ones who know
> best about licensing issues.
This list, debian-legal, is a resource for Debian developers to
determine whether a work is free software compliant with the DFSG. Its
regular members con
"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is not Debian related, but I think you are the ones who know
best about licensing issues.
This list, debian-legal, is a resource for Debian developers to
determine wheth
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> It's probably to do with the "v2 or later" stuff. I can't remember, but
> it was discussed on Groklaw, and v3 *is* retroactive to the extent that
> a lot of stuff is licenced "or later".
It's not retroactive. Right now you are free to choose to use
any "GPLv2 or late
19 matches
Mail list logo
