On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 03:54 pm, Nobody wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 12:28:33 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>>> OTOH, a Free software licence is unilateral; the author grants the user
>>> certain rights, with the user providing nothing in return.
>>
>> That's not the case with the GPL.
>>
>> The
Nobody writes:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 12:28:33 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>>> OTOH, a Free software licence is unilateral; the author grants the user
>>> certain rights, with the user providing nothing in return.
>>
>> That's not the case with the GPL.
>>
>> The GPL requires the user (not t
On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 12:28:33 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> OTOH, a Free software licence is unilateral; the author grants the user
>> certain rights, with the user providing nothing in return.
>
> That's not the case with the GPL.
>
> The GPL requires the user (not the end-user, who merely av
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016, at 22:02, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> (I am surprised that it takes so little to grant end-user usage
> rights, but IANAL and presumably the FSF's lawyers consider that
> sufficient. Perhaps there are common law usage rights involved.)
Technically, there are statutory usage right
Terry Reedy :
> On 6/4/2016 4:24 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> In Finland, it is common for families to have a printed copy of the
>> law on the bookshelf.
>
> How wonderful that 'the law' can fit in a book.
Must be abridged, although I'm not sure.
>> Families traditionally sort out things like i
On 6/4/2016 4:24 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Paul Rudin :
Don't confuse consideration with agreement - they're seperate legal
concepts.
Agreement is certainly necessary in pretty much all jurisdictions.
Consideration is required in most common law jurisdiction (England,
the US, most of the commo
Paul Rudin :
> Don't confuse consideration with agreement - they're seperate legal
> concepts.
>
> Agreement is certainly necessary in pretty much all jurisdictions.
> Consideration is required in most common law jurisdiction (England,
> the US, most of the commonwealth) but not in many continenta
Lawrence D’Oliveiro writes:
> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 9:53:47 PM UTC+12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> A licence is something like a contract...
>
> A licence is quite different from a contract. A contract requires some
> indication of explicit agreement by both parties, a licence does not. That
Lawrence D’Oliveiro writes:
> I wonder about the point of that, though; I have heard of cases where
> the judge ruled that the contract had been breached, and awarded
> damages of one pound/dollar/euro. So other than winning a symbolic
> victory, what was the point?
Damages for breach of contra
Nobody writes:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:15:55 -0700, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> A licence is quite different from a contract. A contract requires some
>> indication of explicit agreement by both parties, a licence does not.
>
> More precisely, it requires "mutual
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 06:58 am, Nobody wrote:
> OTOH, a Free software licence is unilateral; the author grants the user
> certain rights, with the user providing nothing in return.
That's not the case with the GPL.
The GPL requires the user (not the end-user, who merely avails themselves of
their c
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 02:15 am, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 9:53:47 PM UTC+12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> A licence is something like a contract...
>
> A licence is quite different from a contract. A contract requires some
> indication of explicit agreement by both part
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:14 pm, Michael Torrie wrote:
> I'm not sure this is completely right. The GPL explicitly says one doesn't
> have to agree to the GPL to use the software. The GPL only comes into
> affect when distribution is involved.
Yes, you're right, I was unclear.
See https://opensour
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 8:58:19 AM UTC+12, Nobody wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:15:55 -0700, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
> >> [quoted text muted]
> >
> > A licence is quite different from a contract. A contract requires some
> > indication of explicit agreement by both parties, a licence
On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:15:55 -0700, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> A licence is quite different from a contract. A contract requires some
> indication of explicit agreement by both parties, a licence does not.
More precisely, it requires "mutual consideration", i.e. each p
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 9:53:47 PM UTC+12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> A licence is something like a contract...
A licence is quite different from a contract. A contract requires some
indication of explicit agreement by both parties, a licence does not. That’s
why Free Software licences only ha
On Jun 3, 2016 04:57, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote:
> (1) If the GPL licence is valid, then they are in breach of the licence
> terms, the licence is revoked, and they are not legally permitted to
> distribute or use the software;
>
> (2) If, as some people insist, the GPL licence is not valid, then th
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 04:41 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html
>
> From that:
>> It might be ruled to create a global licence for unrestricted use. That
> > licence might or might not then be adjudicated to be revo
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 12:26:33 AM UTC+12, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> If the author has one right to their work, it is relinquishing all rights to
> that work.
In Europe, you don’t have that right.
> All works will eventually fall into the public domain anyway...
Not if certain large corporati
On 02/06/2016 07:41, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html
From that:
It might be ruled to create a global licence for unrestricted use. That
licence might or might not then be adjudicated to be revocable by subsequent
copy
Chris Angelico :
> I honestly don't see why people want to put their code into the public
> domain, when the MIT license is pretty close to that anyway. What's
> the point?
Why did I put my book translation into the public domain (http://pacujo.net/esperanto/literaturo/juho/>)?
Because that's wh
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 04:41 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>>> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html
>>
>> From that:
>>> It might be ruled to create a global licence for unrestricted use. That
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 04:41 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html
>
> From that:
>> It might be ruled to create a global licence for unrestricted use. That
> > licence might or might not then be adjudicated to be revo
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html
From that:
It might be ruled to create a global licence for unrestricted use. That
> licence might or might not then be adjudicated to be revocable by subsequent
> copyright owners (heirs, divorcing spouses
On Thursday 02 June 2016 06:45, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 3:00:05 AM UTC+12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> ... because it is extremely unlikely to work.
>
> Which is why CC0 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ was
> invented.
Very true. The purpose of
On Thursday 02 June 2016 07:00, John Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 3:00:05 AM UTC+12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > ... because it is extremely unlikely to work.
>>
>> Which is why CC0 https://creativecommons.org/public
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 3:00:05 AM UTC+12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > ... because it is extremely unlikely to work.
>
> Which is why CC0 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ was
> invented.
> --
>
This does not solve
On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 3:00:05 AM UTC+12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> ... because it is extremely unlikely to work.
Which is why CC0 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ was
invented.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano :
> ... because it is extremely unlikely to work. If you actually want
> your users to be legally able to use your software without a
> commercial licence, use a recognised open licence like the MIT
> licence. Public domain dedications are on extremely shaky ground and
> give your
... because it is extremely unlikely to work. If you actually want your
users to be legally able to use your software without a commercial licence,
use a recognised open licence like the MIT licence. Public domain
dedications are on extremely shaky ground and give your users no
protection.
http://
30 matches
Mail list logo
