Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>The entire point and *purpose* of a lawyer specializing in contract law is
>to write clearly. They're not writing clearly for the average reader,
>necessarily; that requires a whole different type of phrasing. They're
>writing clearly for the interpret
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Perhaps; it depends on how clear the AL already is. :) If it's already
>>quite clear in English, if not in legal terms, then a lawyer starting from
>>it should come up with something pretty close to what everyone wants.
>
>But my point is that I don't w
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >3. The current AL probably does not convey the above in terms
>> > acceptable to lawyers and it is worth making it do so.
>> >Can we all agree on these points?
>>
>>No. I disagree with #3.
>
>May I ask what part you disagree with?
>
>That it is probably
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >3. The current AL probably does not convey the above in terms
> >> > acceptable to lawyers and it is worth making it do so.
> >> >Can we all agree on these points?
> >>
> >>No. I disagree with #3.
> >
> >May I ask what part
Russ Allbery writes:
>The entire point and *purpose* of a lawyer specializing in contract law is
>to write clearly. They're not writing clearly for the average reader,
>necessarily; that requires a whole different type of phrasing. They're
>writing clearly for the interpretation of the contract
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is no need for a lawyer to compose the actual language. We are
> probably better off if a writer does. Lawyers are not well-versed, in
> general, in writing clearly.
Comments like the above worry me a lot. It's a perception of lawyers, of
the l
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's just silly. None of those issues were around when the BSD and
> MIT licenses were penned. They are very simple licenses that most any
> reasonable person could have written.
I think it's pretty obvious from the wording of both of those licenses
At 12:44 -0700 2000.09.12, Dave Storrs wrote:
>Um, with all due respect, Chris, I'm having a lot of trouble following
>your reasoning. I currently work for a company that is in serious trouble
>and may well go under; one of the contributing factors to that situation
>may well have been that our s
Um, with all due respect, Chris, I'm having a lot of trouble following
your reasoning. I currently work for a company that is in serious trouble
and may well go under; one of the contributing factors to that situation
may well have been that our senior management writes their own contracts
witho
At 9:32 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
>His lawyers were fine with the fact that it gave them the
>freedom that they were looking for. They were not answering
>the question of whether it gave Larry anything related to
>what he apparently wants out of it.
You said lawyers do not find it accep
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 8:24 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >>And we also have statements of fact that some lawyers do find it
> >>acceptable. If you had said "some," I would have agreed. But I took
>your
> >>lack of quantifying modifier to be a statement that all, or even most,
> >>law
At 8:32 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>That's just silly. None of those issues were around when the BSD and MIT
>>licenses were penned. They are very simple licenses that most any
>>reasonable person could have written. None of them could cite chapter and
>>verse what the issues are that
At 8:24 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>And we also have statements of fact that some lawyers do find it
>>acceptable. If you had said "some," I would have agreed. But I took your
>>lack of quantifying modifier to be a statement that all, or even most,
>>lawyers find it unacceptable. I am
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 6:21 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >I know some non-lawyers who could write a software license I
> >would trust. But I would not want to rely on a license
> >written by anyone who didn't not only know the above, but
> >who could not cite chapter and verse what tho
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 12:45 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Chris Nandor wrote:
> >>
> >>At 11:40 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >> >1. Larry is in charge of Perl.
> >> >
> >> >2. Perl should be available under terms agreeable with the
> >> > above statement.
> >> >
> >> >Two add
At 6:21 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
>I know some non-lawyers who could write a software license I
>would trust. But I would not want to rely on a license
>written by anyone who didn't not only know the above, but
>who could not cite chapter and verse what those issues are.
That's just sil
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 20:04 -0700 2000.09.11, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> But my point is that I don't want a laywer actually writing the
>license.
> >> I would rather he give his input and opinions, and then others do the
> >> writing. I am far m
At 20:04 -0700 2000.09.11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But my point is that I don't want a laywer actually writing the license.
>> I would rather he give his input and opinions, and then others do the
>> writing. I am far more interested in his opinion of th
At 12:45 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Chris Nandor wrote:
>>
>>At 11:40 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
>> >1. Larry is in charge of Perl.
>> >
>> >2. Perl should be available under terms agreeable with the
>> > above statement.
>> >
>> >Two additional points come to mind as my opinion
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But my point is that I don't want a laywer actually writing the license.
> I would rather he give his input and opinions, and then others do the
> writing. I am far more interested in his opinion of the existing
> license than his version of it.
This m
At 13:02 -0700 2000.09.11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At 10:58 -0400 2000.09.11, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>>> I have been talking with Eben Moglen, a prominent law professor at
>>> Columbia University, and he is willing to help us in developing some
>>> propos
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 10:58 -0400 2000.09.11, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>> I have been talking with Eben Moglen, a prominent law professor at
>> Columbia University, and he is willing to help us in developing some
>> proposed new versions of the Artistic License.
> That soun
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 11:40 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >1. Larry is in charge of Perl.
> >
> >2. Perl should be available under terms agreeable with the
> > above statement.
> >
> >Two additional points come to mind as my opinions:
> >
> >3. The current AL probably does not convey
At 11:40 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
>1. Larry is in charge of Perl.
>
>2. Perl should be available under terms agreeable with the
> above statement.
>
>Two additional points come to mind as my opinions:
>
>3. The current AL probably does not convey the above in terms
> acceptable to la
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> >> Here's what I like: *LARRY AND LARRY ALONE* gets to say what happens to
> >> that thing we call "perl".
>
> >The plan of this working group is to propose RFCs for Larry's later
>perusal
> >about what should happen with copyright and licensing of perl6.
>
>You misund
At 10:58 -0400 2000.09.11, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>I have been talking with Eben Moglen, a prominent law professor at
>Columbia University, and he is willing to help us in developing some
>proposed new versions of the Artistic License.
That sounds really bad. The last thing we need in here is a
>> Here's what I like: *LARRY AND LARRY ALONE* gets to say what happens to
>> that thing we call "perl".
>The plan of this working group is to propose RFCs for Larry's later perusal
>about what should happen with copyright and licensing of perl6.
You misunderstand. I was talking something else
"Bradley M. Kuhn" wrote:
>Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Surely there must be someone in the Perl community with either
> > intellectual property law experience or a willingness to chip in to a
>fund
> > to hire an intellectual property lawyer?
Define "Perl Community". I am currently trying to get K
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Surely there must be someone in the Perl community with either
> intellectual property law experience or a willingness to chip in to a fund
> to hire an intellectual property lawyer?
I have been talking with Eben Moglen, a prominent law professor at Columbia
University, and
Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >In more of an attempt to be constructive, what if we identify the key
> >aspects to the AL that people like and then, for Perl 6, find legal
> >counsel to review and help draft a precise legal license with those key
> >features?
> Here's what I like: *LARRY AND LARRY A
At 19:02 -0600 2000.09.10, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>>In more of an attempt to be constructive, what if we identify the key
>>aspects to the AL that people like and then, for Perl 6, find legal
>>counsel to review and help draft a precise legal license with those key
>>features?
>
>Here's what I li
>In more of an attempt to be constructive, what if we identify the key
>aspects to the AL that people like and then, for Perl 6, find legal
>counsel to review and help draft a precise legal license with those key
>features?
Here's what I like: *LARRY AND LARRY ALONE* gets to say what happens to
t
At 16:32 -0700 2000.09.10, Russ Allbery wrote:
>In more of an attempt to be constructive, what if we identify the key
>aspects to the AL that people like and then, for Perl 6, find legal
>counsel to review and help draft a precise legal license with those key
>features?
I think that's a good idea
33 matches
Mail list logo
