On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 07:35:03PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
|On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 09:27:05AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
| Tomasz Wegrzanowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| What kind of free licence make such situations possible ???
| (for me it is not free even a little bit if
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 07:12:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
For comparison, the Finnish law says,
unofficially translated by me as:
[snip something which could equally well be a direct translation of
the Danish law]
(Apparently this
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:26:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
[snip something which could equally well be a direct translation of
the Danish law]
Not according to your previous message: you said there that the Danish
law required one to have the right to run the program, but the Finnish
one
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:26:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
[snip something which could equally well be a direct translation of
the Danish law]
Not according to your previous message: you said there that the Danish
law required one
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you said there that the Danish
law required one to have the right to run the program, but the Finnish
one requires you to be in possession of a legal copy.
This is getting interesting. When the clause was first added to Danish
law in 1992 it
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm told that under American law, a promise that is made without
getting something tangible (a consideration) in return cannot be
legally binding. That would seem to allow any free software license
to be revoked as soon as the author wants to.
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Contracts require consideration to be taken as valid contracts. Mere
promises are not legally enforceable. However, the right to copy the
software is most certainly consideration.
Yes, but I was thinking the other way around: the author of the
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Contracts require consideration to be taken as valid contracts. Mere
promises are not legally enforceable. However, the right to copy the
software is most certainly consideration. There is no requirement
that the consideration be tangible;
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 03:00:12PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL is also not a contract, it's a public license.
It's a license which offers contractual terms for those who wish to
redistribute the software. In exchange for restricting yourself to the
conditions of the license you
William T Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a very interesting thought. What if you reverse it? The *author*
of the software receives no consideration from the person the software is
distributed to. I am suddenly very afraid of this.
Yes, and that means that the copier cannot sue
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, but I was thinking the other way around: the author of the
program does not necessarily get any consideration out of putting
his program under the GPL (which ought to count as a promise to
enter the described contract with anyone who accepts the
11 matches
Mail list logo
