Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe the MPL was ever meant to be a free license,just an open one,
> hence the requests and eventual agreement to release it under the GPL. So
> long as Debian distributes under the GPL, there's no issue for debian-legal.
>
I'm afraid that i
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:30:09PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> > | With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or
> > an
> > | entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of
> > America,
> > | any litig
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm afraid that is a revisionist interpretation. First, Mozilla is
> > certainly intended to be "Open Source", which is essentially the same
> > as
> > what Debian means by "free":
>
> The jury seems out on that. They could mean *anything* by "Open
> Source
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would imagine that the plaintiff would argue in their local court that the
> clause was enforceable, and the defendant would argue in their local court
> that it wasn't. If both won in their respective juristictions, you would
> appeal the decisions to
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know much about the US legal system. How different is this
> from the ordinary default situation? If I were "a citizen of, or an
> entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of
> America" would I normally be able to s
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see
> that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public
> licence quite a lot of legal work has to be done in order to show that
> the licence has anything to do wit
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:48:23PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
> > I am wondering this as well. It might actually be legally *preferable*
> > to have a license where choice of venue is specified, because otherwise
> > one needs t
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus,
> while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It
> is always beneficial to receive software under a free license.
I disagree; obtaining software under a DFSG
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are exceptionally confused. A contract is a legal agreement, with
> specific requirements -- typically agreement, compensation, and a few
> less famous ones.
>
> A license is a grant of permission. Much like a title or deed, a
> license may b
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses GPL grants you, you
> > must comply with all of the terms. Some of those terms require that you
> > perform in some way, e.g. by distributing source code.
>
> Actually, as far as I can tell, they don'
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Second, while acceptance alone does not obligate anything of you, some
> > obligations do kick in if you try to use some of the rights you have
> > been granted. For example, if you take the option to distribute
> > binaries of modifications and
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, but that is a nitpick IMHO. What good is an offer that you never
> > plan to use? If you prefer, call the relevent clause of GPL to be an
> > offer of a contract, instead of being a contract itself. It doesn't
> > seem to change the essenc
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, in the US a contract has a few requirements inconsistent
> with a free license:
This, by the way, is the kind of thing that should be talked about.
Still, I am not clear on why these things *must* be non-free.
> * A meeting of minds
> > Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email,
> > receive email, and browse web pages. There may be no incremental cost
> > associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost. (Therefore
> > it's not free, so I don't have to send one)
>
> True, but a licen
.gatech.edu/squeak/3616
For anyone curious about the Squeak people's take on all this, look
here:
"Squeak-L"
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/159
Sincerely,
Lex Spoon
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roland Stigge wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lex Spoon wrote:
> >> The export clause just means Squeak must go into non-free.
> >
> > No. Rather non-US. With non-free, we have the same export problem. A
Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that's not feasible, Squeak seems to be clearly non-free.
Yes.
Please let us drop the DFSG side discussion. Apple has
abandoned Squeak and will not be changing the license in the
forseable future. The people developing Squeak continue using this
lic
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Apple put in code they don't own and Debian distributed it, then
> clause 5 means that when the people sue Apple for that distribution,
> Debian has to pay for Apple's defense. Normally, Debian would only
> pay for Debian's defense.
Notice, though, t
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 'when such distribution is prohibited by law' - If you're not a US
> citizen, and not in the US, US law does not apply to you, and therefore
> does not prohibit such distribution.
[...]
>
> 'all applicable United States export control laws' - none of th
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Lex Spoon wrote:
> > The clause does not mean it must go into non-US, but the opposite:
> > US servers are already bound by this clause anyway due to federal
> > law. Thus we should distribute it fr
Debian. We already have a distribution server at Berkeley, so we
already need to evaluate and comply with the laws of northern
California.
Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lex Spoon wrote:
> > 3. We would be in good company, because Squeak is already distributed
>
> > Are we sure this is what those weasle words mean? Not that I am fully
> > up on lawyer-speak, but I read the "applicable laws" as "laws referring
> > to software, cryptography, etc." That is, I read it as, you must follow
> > the relevant US export laws but you do not have to follow all of U
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BUT, we are only obligated to the extent the case deals with our own
> > actions. I do not see a problem with this. That seems good and proper
> > to stand up for our own actions. The clause does *NOT* make us liable
> > for all legal attacks on Apple
> > > > I do not understand your issue about locality. The business in question
> > > > is us, Debian. We already have a distribution server at Berkeley, so we
> > > > already need to evaluate and comply with the laws of northern
> > > > California.
> > >
> > > The CD distributors are not part
Martin, it's great of you to do a summary. My thoughts included below.
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > | "You may distribute and sublicense such Modified Software only under the
> > | terms of a valid, binding license that makes no
> > | And furthermore, the worst line of all:
> > |
> > | "This License allows you to copy, install and use the Apple Software on
> > | an unlimited number of computers under your direct control."
> > |
> > | Purports to restrict use. Doesn't allow use on computers not "under
> > | your direct c
I've posted a summary of the discussion on including Squeak in non-free:
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3733
I'll edit it as issues come up. There are two open issues:
1. Export regs. Are our servers up to snuff for avoiding export to US
embargoed countries? (It looks to
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've posted a summary of the discussion on including Squeak in non-free:
> >
> > http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3733
> >
> > I&
Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > The term "under your direct control" typically does not refer to
> > > physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it
> > > usu
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Keep in mind that "it is extremely unlikely" was only part of the
> > argument. There is also that we are only liable "to the extent that"
> > our d
"Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Phillips sed:
> > I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded "fair credit", but I would
> > object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular
> > form.
>
> Well I can agree to be flexible. Can you suggest either another
Dmitry Borodaenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AD>>> I don't think its reasonable to expect me to keep track of every
> AD>>> single change I've ever made;
> DB>> Did you notice that I limit this to _published_ modifications?
> AD> Sorry, I missed that. However, I've certainly sent various peop
32 matches
Mail list logo
