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
stamen
Great Investment Newsletter, Get APWL . Pk!
APWL Is A Gold Mine - It's Ready To Explode.
This is Our Hot Pick This Week, It Can Easily
Go Up to 2.25 Very Fast Here Is The Latest News
Below. Don't Miss Out On This One Get It Asap
For Big Pr0fits Like Our Other Picks which
return 300 to
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).
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying
with for a slightly more (informally) directed approach to license
analysis, that should prove harder to derail with long pointless
tangents and more immune to revisionism by the
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
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:44:23AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)
Version 1.0
* 1. Definitions.
[...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
I have managed to find out what C.F.R. means and to locate the text
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
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
Guimar?es wrote:
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to
come up with
more than that.
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who
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
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[control definition]
The intent here is to avoid a party to this license spinning choice
assets off into a corporation for the express purpose of playing shell
games and screwing the licensor in the event of license termination.
If the screwing has
Scripsit John Hasler
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
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:28:46PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
* 99.. MMIISSCCEELLLLAANNEEOOUUSS..
This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter
hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable,
such
Scripsit Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o 3.2. Modifications.
The Modifications that You create or to which You
contribute are governed by the terms of this License.
I think this is sloppy language - the licensor cannot unilaterally
make his license apply
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o 3.2. Modifications.
The Modifications that You create or to which You
contribute are governed by the terms of this License.
I think this is
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o 3.3. Required Notices.
You must include a notice in each of Your Modifications
that identifies You as the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
** Matthew Garrett ::
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument
here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.
You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original
argument isn't.
The argument, simplified, basically
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
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why does the exotic courts aspect actually make any significant
difference? Are you honestly asserting that the cost of me travelling
to, say, Finland is going to be large compared to the costs of hiring a
lawyer to defend me?
I am. If the plaintiff
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
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
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
Henning Makholm writes:
A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL software I
would file in US district court.
--
John Hasler
--
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
Matthew Garrett writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On 09 Sep 2005 17:52:00 +0200, Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The argument, simplified, basically goes like this:
1. Program A is licensed under the GPL. = Debian can distribute A.
Library M is licensed under the GPL. = Debian can distribute M.
Program B is a derivative of A,
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
Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric. Assume every work
eligible for copyright protection, for the sake of the argument, and
for $DEITY's sake. AND we're talking ONLY about dynamic linking.
AND, to boot, that those bits that end up in a compiled work by way
of being in a .h file (for
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
John Hasler writes:
Henning Makholm writes:
A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL software I
would file in US district court.
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
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 that covers legal cases in their home
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
[...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms
of,
this License. For legal entities, You includes any entity
which
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with
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
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o 3.2. Modifications.
The Modifications that You create or to which You
contribute are governed by the terms of this License.
I think
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:44:56PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've been
saying that all along.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`.
On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote:
[...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal
entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the
terms of,
this License. For legal entities, You includes any
entity which
controls, is
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
Guimar?es wrote:
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to
come up with
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:56:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
John Hasler writes:
Henning Makholm writes:
A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
If I were to sue you for infringing
FRCP 8(a) requires any such claim to explain why the court has
jurisdiction over the question and the defendant. How would your
pleading address this?
Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
Whose US citizenship?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:44:39PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:44:56PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of
Please stop breaking threads.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:53:15PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
FRCP 8(a) requires any such claim to explain why the court has
jurisdiction over the question and the defendant. How would your
pleading address this?
Why would US citizenship
David Nusinow writes:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:56:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
John Hasler writes:
Henning Makholm writes:
A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
If I were
Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
Whose US citizenship?
The plaintiff.
No.
Because the Court has no bearing on what would a non-US-citizen
nor-US-resident (the defendant) will do. If the Court orders you (*)
to stop distributing some software and you don't, the Police gets
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:01:17PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
Whose US citizenship?
The plaintiff.
No.
Because the Court has no bearing on what would a non-US-citizen
nor-US-resident (the defendant) will do. If the
David Nusinow writes:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:01:17PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
Whose US citizenship?
The plaintiff.
No.
Because the Court has no bearing on what would a non-US-citizen
nor-US-resident (the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument
here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.
You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original
argument
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
Guimar?es wrote:
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:30:17PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
No, you are not telling me why my argument is broken. If you are
trying, you're not being very clear. Why is my argument broken exactly?
By trivially continuing it to the next obvious point, it concludes
that the GPL doesn't
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:56:47PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:44:39PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:44:56PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on
[debian-devel dropped, way off topic there]
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:37:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
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
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:55:24PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Not really interested in the case where you actually did infringe on
the license. I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about whether we
discriminate against such people.
Nuisance lawsuits are the canonical example of the
On 9/9/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am acutely disinterested in that debate because it's long and
boring, but there's a lot of law professors who like it and think that
the GPL does work. I suggest you go argue with them instead.
Name one other than Mr. Moglen.
- Michael
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
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Someone should really file a removal request against Mozilla.
(No, Mozilla is not
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Someone should
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:55:24PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Not really interested in the case where you actually did infringe on
the license. I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about whether we
discriminate against such
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
(No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet)
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:31:17PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Ok, thank you for clarifying that. I think we need to consider the point
that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause may be
important for a
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:36:30AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
(No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet)
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
John Hasler dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:44:56PM -0500]:
Henning Makholm writes:
A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL
Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote:
[...] o 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal
entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the
terms of,
this License.
Matthew Garrett dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:33:09PM +0100]:
The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree
*in advance* to waive your usual protections against arbitrary
lawsuits in exotic courts.
Why does the exotic courts aspect actually make any significant
I wrote:
If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL software I
would file in US district court.
Gunnar Wolf writes:
Does law apply extraterritorially? I don't think so. If he is infringing
your copyright in Indonesia, you can sue him in Indonesia...
If I find that Nokia is
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005, John Hasler wrote:
Gunnar Wolf writes:
...Or get him extradited somehow.
Extradition has nothing to do with civil lawsuits.
Hey, copyright infringement is a crime these days...
Don Armstrong
--
[A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the
class
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
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
