On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want
(unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to
enter the scene... all over the world.
Not now. Debian (and I think every other
On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
it's up to you explaining why.
here they are:
So finally we are up to the good old every restriction is a
discrimination argument. Even if in the last two years it has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
[...] Even if in the last two years it has become
popular among some debian-legal@ contributors while the rest of the
project was not looking [...]
Yes, the debian-legal cabal has been working in secret on its
public mailing list and has devised a plot
On Saturday 10 September 2005 18:54, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you
want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane
cases' to enter the scene... all over the
On Sep 10, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not now. Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
apparent ill effect on users.
Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has not been
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star
is
weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug.
While it is obviously true that the
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:57:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 10, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not now. Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
apparent ill effect on users.
Not
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
cannot make a license non-free.
Yeah, but
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
Could you explain why DFSG#5
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| The Covered Code is a commercial item, as that term is defined in
| 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of commercial computer
| software and commercial computer software documentation, as such
| terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995).
On Friday 09 September 2005 01:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
it's up to you explaining why.
Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I am refusing
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:46:04AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
it's up to you explaining why.
Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home
Scripsit Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
discriminated against.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.
Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be
meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated
against.
Why do you think that a copyright owner
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be
meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
meaningfull to
On Friday 09 September 2005 15:46, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
discriminated against. If everybody
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
them?
YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee;
the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate against
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
of their rights to assure the rights of the commons.
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
them?
Debian has always been full of software
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
of their rights to assure the rights of the commons.
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree
*in advance* to waive your usual protections against arbitrary
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:41:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
some restrictions present in the CDDL.
It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
license is free,
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Matthew The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true
Matthew regardless of license conditions.
Although I don' dispute this assertion per se, the problem at hand is that
*geography*
necessarily discriminates
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:41, MJ Ray wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids
some restrictions present in the CDDL.
It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable
license is free, then it's
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.
This seems remarkably similar to the argument The user has carte
blanche to exercise DFSG freedoms;
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:10, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs.
This seems remarkably similar to the
Matthew Garrett writes:
A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big
evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and
suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry
greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:57, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
that choice of venue makes is that it potentially
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
licensor gets
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
You seem to assert that licenses
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even
if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal
or something such ?
Court procedures always go by the local law of the forum.
--
Henning Makholm
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only
On 9/9/05, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits.
No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
jurisdiction, no harassment results.
Eh? They can
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
impression that it was generally accepted.
I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held.
Can
The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
discrimination against licensors without money?
DFSG #5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not
Matthew Garrett writes:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
that choice of venue makes is
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
fivolous lawsuits.
No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing
against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ?
The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the
fact that the licensor can
Matthew Garrett writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
unlikely to deter them.
The point is that the cost *for me* of defending
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
unlikely to deter them.
The
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
--cut--
That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned
exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author
thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something
we consider at all. We
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
isn't very realistic.
No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no
reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one is
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only
ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and
housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary
legal cases. In any case, Discriminates against poor people who have an
insurance policy
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to
support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to
what the license imposes on or requires from users.
What's the point in us worrying about
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:24:19PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that
can't actually be exercised in life? There is no freedom not to be
sued, so it's impossible for a license to contravene that.
There are the DFSG freedoms to
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
These two do not appear to be
Sven Luther schrieb:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
Wrong.
So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed
it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:10:56PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Sven Luther schrieb:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
Wrong.
Well, i installed the package in sid (star 1.5a60-2), and looked at
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star
.copyright
Took about
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations Convention on
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Dalibor The application of the
Dalibor United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Dalibor of Goods is expressly excluded.
Dalibor
Dalibor [snip]
Dalibor
Dalibor That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.
That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 05:04:00PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Lionel
Lionel The application of the
Lionel United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Lionel of Goods is expressly excluded.
Lionel
Lionel Yes, but what does it *say*? What are the consequences
Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
file,
so i am not
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
file, so i am not sure what
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:57:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of a
single person here on debian-legal.
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:21:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of
a
single person here on debian-legal.
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that:
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
cannot make a license non-free.
Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we should
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:00 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we
should
not distribute software with such licence.
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case?
It does not work this way. If you believe
83 matches
Mail list logo
