"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> >
> > One key thing to keep in mind is that copyrights apply automatically
> > regardless of age, contracts etc. You have no right to copy a copyrighted
> > work unless the right to do so is given to you (or you have statutory
> > rights such as ma
Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> One key thing to keep in mind is that copyrights apply automatically
> regardless of age, contracts etc. You have no right to copy a copyrighted
> work unless the right to do so is given to you (or you have statutory
> rights such as making backups etc). In this case, you
One key thing to keep in mind is that copyrights apply automatically
regardless of age, contracts etc. You have no right to copy a copyrighted
work unless the right to do so is given to you (or you have statutory
rights such as making backups etc). In this case, you don't have the right
to redis
Well the idea is that someone under 18 in the US can't legally be party
to a contract, so the contract becomes null and void even if I agree to
it. There's lots of legal precedent on this. It may not be this way in
other countries (I take it Australia is different). So if we get stuck
with evil
As one of the masses that could probably be accused of "whining" about the
conditions that eclipse was released under, I figure I better say a little
more. I think what Lucent has done here is "a good thing" ;) At the very
least it gives us a benchmark to work against. At the best, it give
Most licenses aren't all that enforceable. I was speaking with a lawyer
friend who theorized that if the person accepting the license was under
18 (in the US at least) then they could do whatever they want with it.
Solution? Have someone download it for you...I'm only 17, anybody want
unencumbe
I'm quite pleased with what we, as individuals, will be able to learn
about Eclipse, and the terms of the license don't interfere with that
one bit. But--and this is my *only* objection to the license terms--we
each are prohibited from discussing what we discover, absent Lucent's
written permissi
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
>
> Since everyone seems to be jumping up and down on this, I thought I'd
> just chime in with my two cents on the matter.
>
> None of that requires Lucent to be any more "open" than they currently
> are with the licensing of Eclipse and we really ought to be thanking
Since everyone seems to be jumping up and down on this, I thought I'd
just chime in with my two cents on the matter.
I saw the Lucent folks behind this when they first brought a demo of
Eclipse to FreeBSDCon '99 and, frankly, I was just pleased that they
were willing to show up as exhibitors and
+[ Giorgos Keramidas ]-
| On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:56:09PM -0500, Colin wrote:
| >
| > As interesting as this looks, unfortunately the license it comes with
| > efffectively precludes incorporating it into FreeBSD. The license is
| > for single-u
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:56:09PM -0500, Colin wrote:
>
> As interesting as this looks, unfortunately the license it comes with
> efffectively precludes incorporating it into FreeBSD. The license is
> for single-user non-commercial only. They also included derivative
> works in the restriction
On 09-Feb-2000 Joe Abley wrote:
> This may be old news, but I follow -hackers, -arch and -current and
> I hadn't seen it before:
>
> http://www.bell-labs.com/project/eclipse/release/
>
> Would be interested to hear informed opinion as to whether these
> changes might find a permanent home in
On 10-Feb-00 Mark Newton wrote:
> > Has it been proposed yet? (For .au)
> Not for .au, no. Give us five years, though... the companies
> pushing
> the DMCA have a lot of cash...
True, as long as I don't have to panic yet :)
---
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Sof
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 11:48:59AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On 10-Feb-00 Mark Newton wrote:
> > Those clauses aren't enforcible - Yet. They will be when (if) the
> > Digital Millenium Copyright Act passes.
>
> Has it been proposed yet? (For .au)
Not for .au, no. Give us five ye
On 10-Feb-00 Mark Newton wrote:
> Those clauses aren't enforcible - Yet. They will be when (if) the
> Digital Millenium Copyright Act passes.
Has it been proposed yet? (For .au)
---
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 12:04:53PM -0800, Ed Hall wrote:
> : It doesn't appear, from their licensing page, these changes are ever
> : intended to be released to the FreeBSD project. The license is very
> : restrictive about redistribution.
>
> Not only that, but it contains that pernicious
: It doesn't appear, from their licensing page, these changes are ever
: intended to be released to the FreeBSD project. The license is very
: restrictive about redistribution.
Not only that, but it contains that pernicious gag clause: "You agree not
to release the results of any evaluation of t
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> This may be old news, but I follow -hackers, -arch and -current and
> I hadn't seen it before:
>
> http://www.bell-labs.com/project/eclipse/release/
>
> Would be interested to hear informed opinion as to whether these
> changes might find a permanent home in FreeBSD at so
Josef Grosch wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:27:12PM +1300, Joe Abley wrote:
> > This may be old news, but I follow -hackers, -arch and -current and
> > I hadn't seen it before:
> >
> > http://www.bell-labs.com/project/eclipse/release/
> >
> > Would be interested to hear informed opinion a
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:27:12PM +1300, Joe Abley wrote:
> This may be old news, but I follow -hackers, -arch and -current and
> I hadn't seen it before:
>
> http://www.bell-labs.com/project/eclipse/release/
>
> Would be interested to hear informed opinion as to whether these
> changes might
uture.
...
The Eclipse Operating System is a testbed for Quality of Service (QoS)
that is being developed at Information Sciences Research Center in
Bell-Labs, Lucent Technologies.
The current version of Eclipse, which we refer to as Eclipse/BSD, is
based on FreeBSD version 3.4., and is compa
21 matches
Mail list logo
