To Hilton's Shop Customers!

Dear customer! We updated our software catalogue and added new popular products! Now you can get any software item at 90% discount rate! For more information visit us here: http://www.bestoem.info/?densitometer With best regards, Product Manager Edmund Newton

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:38:04PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > [Somebody mentioned to me that there have been responses from > killfiled trolls trying to troll this scenario] There has been no trolling in this thread, at least not by others. You're very close to my killfile yourself due to co

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 04:34:54PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:07:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > >> Why are we concerned about people who pate

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:24:25PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Wouter Verhelst: > > > Unlike in the software business, there are some domains (such as > > pharmaceutics) where patents really are crucial to innovation > > It's not clear which role patents play in pharmaceutics. [...] Okay, t

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:07:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> The GPL rejects users who want to distribute binaries without source. >> The MPL rejects users who want to sue the licensor for infringement of >> patents connected to the software. Why

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:07:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Why are we concerned about people who patent pieces of software while > >> claiming that they'll only use these pat

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

* Andrew Suffield: > You cannot reject a user because you don't like them for some > reason, and say that they do not deserve the same freedoms as > everybody else and therefore it doesn't matter that the software > isn't free for them. We do it with software hoarders, though. I don't think soft

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I can't see any evidence whatsoever that there's a strong majority who >> would agree with that. > > Then I can't see any evidence that there's a strong majority > supporting your attempt to hand over control of free software to large > corporations.

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Why are we concerned about people who patent pieces of software while >> claiming that they'll only use these patents defensively? > > You cannot reject a user because you don't like th

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On 2004-09-20 13:25:54 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * MJ Ray: [...] patent licences which terminate on related patent action may be free. I do not see how copyright licences which terminate on patent action can be free. This strongly favors patent owners over copyright own

Re: Debian Hardened project (question about use of the "Debian" trademark)

On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 01:51:53PM +0200, Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro wrote: > - We put first the patched GCC & Glibc packages (Steve, your 2 cents :D) > - We send an advice to the mailing-lists, we write a little "guideline" > for new development way, telling what the developer needs (and wha

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

* Andrew Suffield: >> We now have a (lower) German court ruling that this isn't the case, >> i.e. that the termination clause is effective and you can't just get >> another copy of the same work. It's rather surprising because it >> conflicts with our equivalent of the first-sale doctrine > > Yes,

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:09:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > If Debian decided that enforcing (any kind of) patents is not a right > of our users we wish to protect, we could come up with criteria that > copyright clauses dealing with patents have to meet. However, if > there is no consensus

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:41:03PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-17 10:05]: > > > The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software > > > without complying with sec

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Company B cannot make counterclaims from its defensive patent > > portfolio, because that would invoke the termination clause and kill > > its modified version. Company B has no prac

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:48:25AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Michael Poole writes: > > Company B's "defensive" claims also affect all other users of the > > original software -- now that they attempt to enforce their patent > > rights, no other users can assume themselves to be safe. > > Why do

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:18:37PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Andrew Suffield: > > > Termination for non-compliance, in a publically redistributed work, is > > just a reflection of copyright law; it doesn't really change what you > > can and can't do. > > We now have a (lower) German court

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:50:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:14:42PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> So your belief that the GPL is free is entirely based on a belief that > >> RMS is wrong, and your belief that RMS

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

* MJ Ray: > I have not expressed this view to debian-project or planet debian: > patent licences which terminate on related patent action may be free. > I do not see how copyright licences which terminate on patent action > can be free. This strongly favors patent owners over copyright owners.

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

* Wouter Verhelst: > Unlike in the software business, there are some domains (such as > pharmaceutics) where patents really are crucial to innovation It's not clear which role patents play in pharmaceutics. You can easily loose them, see:

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

* Andrew Suffield: > Termination for non-compliance, in a publically redistributed work, is > just a reflection of copyright law; it doesn't really change what you > can and can't do. We now have a (lower) German court ruling that this isn't the case, i.e. that the termination clause is effective

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

* Thomas Hood: > It is fine that you think that people who sue for patent infringement are > naughty, but it is also irrelevant. Debian is not in the business of > imposing ethical behavior on its users. Of course we are. Debian tries were hard to serve as a guide what is free software and what

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

* Glenn Maynard: > I don't believe that enforcing software patents is a legitimate "legal > right" that needs to be protected. There is no such thing, "software patents" is misleading. We are concerned with patents that can be infringed by software, not patents on software. A lot of the patents

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

* Thomas Hood: > The point of promoting free software is to allow people to > use/study/modify/redistribute software in freedom. People can't do these > things in freedom if they are subjected to unreasonable restrictions in > the licenses attached to the software. We already accept various trad

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

Thomas Hood writes: > The restrictions in the GPL are of a different kind. They limit what the > licensee can do _with_the_program_. (Viz., the licensee cannot > redistribute the program without providing source code, etc.) These are > not restrictions on what the licensee could have done had s

I'm so sorry! :)

What's so good about it? :) Akkil arnkuluku nyanjarl

Re: Debian Hardened project (question about use of the "Debian" trademark)

ma, 2004-09-20 kello 12:01, Tapio Lehtonen kirjoitti: > What about calling the project "Debian even more hardened". That would > not imply that the original Debian is somehow not secure. Call it "Debian woody was not hard enough and sarge isn't either", perhaps? After all, if all goes well, etch w

Re: Patent clauses in licenses

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:30:13 +0200, Glenn Maynard wrote: > I don't believe that enforcing software patents is a legitimate "legal > right" that needs to be protected. It is fine that you think that people who sue for patent infringement are naughty, but it is also irrelevant. Debian is not in th

Re: Debian Hardened project (question about use of the "Debian" trademark)

On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:12:54PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-15 15:22]: > > That's the reason because it's called *Debian* Hardened... and, did > > you the comments on /.? If you did, you should know a good example > > of another