On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 11:50:54PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Steve On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
Steve If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed
*before*
Steve declaring the license non-free.
Steve
Steve No, I must not do any such thing. And
That is not totally correct. First, choice of venue clauses are, as a
rule, totally legal.
In all countries? Do you have any reference for that?
Second, the judgement won't be directly
enforceable in other countries, but in non-controversial cases (by
controversial, I'm thinking Yahoo!
Non-warranty clauses also override legal mechanisms to favor the
copyright holder. So what? They don't impede the use you can make of
the software. But they are uncomfortable, because should damage arise
following use of the software, the user won't be indemnified. In these
cases, non-warranty
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:04:07PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive
olive That is not totally correct. First, choice of venue clauses are, as a
olive rule, totally legal.
olive
olive In all countries? Do you have any reference for that?
I am certainly not going to state that it is true in all
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:12:55PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive Non-warranty clause are illegal in Europe. However the warranty applies
olive only in the case of commercial transaction. I am not sure you can claim
olive any warranty for a software that you have downloaded at no cost; wether
olive
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:18:55AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To be more specific, we generally consider choice-of-venue non-free when
it
applies to suits brought by the copyright holder (/licensor) against other
people.
It's free when it only applies to suits brought by other
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before*
declaring the license non-free. As long as the DFSG is not changed the
license remains DFSG-free. A lot of people in this list, declare free or
non-free software
Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 12:12:55PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive Non-warranty clause are illegal in Europe. However the warranty applies
olive only in the case of commercial transaction. I am not sure you can claim
olive any warranty for a software that you have downloaded at no
Hi Yorick!
You wrote:
quote
1. Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free
in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. *We
promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
according to these
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:09:42PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive Yorick Cool wrote:
olive Er, no. There is an automatic warranty in sales, but you can
contractually
olive dismiss it. And licensing software is not selling it. I do concede
olive that that to which you refer is a common (but erreoneous)
Hi,
This isn't in Debian yet but a couple of projects (1 LGPL and 1 GPL) I
am trying to package include files from the Unicode site.
http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/ConvertUTF.c
http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/ConvertUTF.h
The file header is:
/*
* Copyright 2001-2004
Hi Daniel!
You wrote:
Should I go ahead and look for alternative implementations or would this
be accepted in Debian in a GPL or LGPL licensed package?
Why not just use the iconv or recode implementations?
--
Kind regards,
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:23:53AM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
Well I obviously agree. My point was that the proposed interpretation
was drifting so far from the DFSG that it wasn't arguable that it
wasn't an addition and not a mere interpretation.
A license that says to modify this software,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:14AM +0400, olive wrote:
If that is what you think, you must first have the DFSG changed *before*
declaring the license non-free.
No, I must not do any such thing. And who are you to tell me I must?
I mean you have to; being not a
Daniel Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
This isn't in Debian yet but a couple of projects (1 LGPL and 1 GPL) I
am trying to package include files from the Unicode site.
http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/ConvertUTF.c
http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF/ConvertUTF.h
Yorick Cool writes:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:21:10AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Glenn There are laws in place for determining the *appropriate* venue. If
Glenn California really is the appropriate venue for the suit, as determined
Glenn by the law, then that's fine. If the appropriate
As
hurt
comb
evening
bring
listen
As
buy
fall
he
say
fit
from
have
say
me
look
make
give
ask
borrow
him
stand
rain
It
work
send
school
need
drink
give
worry
comb
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 08:26:52AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Yorick Cool writes:
Michael
Michael On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:21:10AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Michael Glenn There are laws in place for determining the *appropriate*
venue. If
Michael Glenn California really is the
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that is a free software license. RMS has reviewed it and
thought it was OK. If people here would review it as well, that may
be useful.
To simplify review, below is the Unicode Consortium's license.
FWIW, I recall that RMS reviewed it for
quote who=Frank Küster date=Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:50:04PM +0100
Thank you for the report; it sounds promising, but on the other hand it
sounds as if talking upstream authors[1] into relicensing their
documentation with a CC license will not be an option for etch.
That depends on when 3.0
quote who=Marco d'Itri date=Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 12:55:18AM +0100
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6028746-2.html?tag=st.next
Moglen:
I would distinguish the blobs from the proprietary drivers in the
kernel. If the kernel's terms were unambiguously GPL, which they are
apparently not,
Yorick Cool writes:
You have very well elaborated on FOO, it is good example. That means
that if a US licensor established in New York licenses software to
me without specifying anything as to venue, then I shall potentially
be attracted to New York in case of litigation. How is that
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
And licensing software is not selling it.
Yorick, Yorick. The courts disagree.
Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between Adobe
and any third-party such that a breach of the license constitutes
copyright
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Beware, what you are citing is an opinion, and not the actual legal
framework.
Yorick, Yorick. I suggest you go talk to Hoeren on software
licensing in Europe.
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
The Prof.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Yorick Cool writes:
Michael
Michael You have very well elaborated on FOO, it is good example. That means
Michael that if a US licensor established in New York licenses software to
Michael me without specifying anything as
On 1/26/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit?
I've heard mention of the concept.
Have you heard of 425.16?
(It's visible at http://www.casp.net/cal425.html)
Ok, I'm assuming that free software is in the public interest, but I
don't
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
[... blame geography ...]
For the record: I agree with Yorick regarding venue. Poole is dead
wrong as usual.
regards,
alexander.
On 26 Jan 2006 11:07:02 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yorick Cool writes:
And for others it might change the rules in a non-costly way or not at
all.
Thus it is a form of discrimination. It imposes costs (conditional,
but still costs) on some people that it does not impose
On 1/26/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not at all convinced. First, I wonder if this choice of venue is
legal.
I think the question is not whether it's legal, but whether it's
relevant.
In some cases it is (for example, if someone takes action against
Adobe based on that license), in
On 1/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
And licensing software is not selling it.
Yorick, Yorick. The courts disagree.
And then quotes as proof a huge chunk of
Yorick Cool writes:
If the default rules of law force you to accept a lawsuit brought upon
you in New York, then a license with no choice of venue clause very
much does force you to go to NY if you don't want to.
It should be quite plain that the license has nothing to do with that
Just to stress...
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
And licensing software is not selling it.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:45:33PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Yorick Cool writes:
Michael
Michael If the default rules of law force you to accept a lawsuit brought
upon
Michael you in New York, then a license with no choice of venue clause very
Michael much does force you to go to NY
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:45:33PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael Thus it is a form of discrimination. It imposes costs
(conditional,
Michael but still costs) on some people that it does not impose on
Michael others.
As does every single license on earth, because you could be
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:47:37PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael If the laws governing default fora are flawed, please fix
those laws.
Very well. I am now off to fix the laws of every country in the
world. I will tell legislators that it is because any other conduct
might mean that a few
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:31:25PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
It should be obvious that the silence of a licence is an implicit
acceptance of the legal effects of laws it could have rejected. Since
it could have changed those effects, by not speaking, the licence is
taking a positive stance.
On 1/26/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:47:37PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Michael If the laws governing default fora are flawed, please fix
those laws.
Very well. I am now off to fix the laws of every country in the
world.
Take me, take me with you, oh
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:18:55 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On 1/25/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any dispute arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of
Santa Clara County, California, USA.
This is a choice of venue and is
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:40:35 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
Right. Moglen thinks that blobs in the kernel source are non-free but
not GPL violations. Unfortunately, I think the contentious issue lies
in his first claim, not the second.
I'm not sure I parse you correctly.
Are you saying that the
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:34:13AM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
Glenn Michael I do not miss that point at all; I think that the default
rules of law
Glenn Michael are preferable to the imposition of a forum selected by the
Glenn Michael licensor.
Glenn
Glenn And why is that, if the
On 1/27/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Agreeing to the condition--[whatever]--is a condition to receive
the license to the software.
Well, the GPLv3, for example, elaborates on GPLv2 section 5 (go read
its first statement) and says that You are not required to accept
this
Hi all;
This question doesn't directly relate to debian, but i hope you can
help straighten me out with this.
I'm trying to understand licensing obligations in regard to GPL'ed
binaries that link to GPL incompatible libraries.
The current situation.
A GPL'ed binary links to a shared library
42 matches
Mail list logo
