George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The venue could make significant difference here, because the licensor could
be terribly wrong in one jurisdiction and correct in another.
That's a problem with choice of law, not choice of venue.
Furthermore you can hadly measure whether the licensor
Cc'ing because I forgot to look and mdpoole cc'd. Please do not cc me
on replies to debian-legal.
Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any document that describes why debian considers CDDL[1] to not
be DFSG compliant (if that statement still holds true)?
There is no single document
Hi all,
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 11:56,:
Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs wrt/
choice of venue paragraph present in CDDL.
Different people have different opinions. That should not surprise anyone.
We are not a
Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fair enough, but if ftpmasters decide on inclusion/exclusion of certain
software, there should at least be common consensus concerting certain
license.
Yes, there should be, but I doubt everyone gets it right every time and
ftpmasters are not exactly
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 15:23,:
Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do understand it in this way:
- c-o-v as required by paragraph 9. of CDDL is a note attached to the
license itself, to my understanding you can put there any jurisdiction
you want (you as the author or contributor),
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 17:01, Martin Man wrote:
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 15:23,:
Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--cut--
the original package in question was cdrtools by Joerg Schelling, Joerg
was claiming that debian refuses to upgrade to a newer version of his
sources because of
Hi George,
George Danchev wrote On 2006-08-09 16:22,:
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 17:01, Martin Man wrote:
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 15:23,:
Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--cut--
the original package in question was cdrtools by Joerg Schelling, Joerg
was claiming that debian
Martin Man writes:
Hi all,
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 11:56,:
Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs
wrt/ choice of venue paragraph present in CDDL.
Different people have different opinions. That should not surprise
Marcel Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
and some other things, it looks rather like a licensor trying to get
some advantage, such as being able to use
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 18:49, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Marcel Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
and some other things, it looks rather like a licensor
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An evil author (as copyright holder) despite his limited resources could
cause
lots of damage to a large company which has never violated his copyrights.
This is even more scary.
Someone of sufficient evilness can do that whether they're acting
Matthew Garrett writes:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An evil author (as copyright holder) despite his limited resources could
cause
lots of damage to a large company which has never violated his copyrights.
This is even more scary.
Someone of sufficient evilness can do that
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
disbarment. These go away if the license explicitly
Matthew Garrett writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
disbarment. These go away if
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Marcel Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
and some other things, it looks rather like a licensor trying to
On Thursday 10 August 2006 01:07, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
Forwarding once again my email, since it seems it has not gone through
to the list for the first time.
---BeginMessage---
Hi all,
I was searching around the web regadring the $subj, but I was unable to
find any official statement from Debian concerning the issue.
Is there any document that
Martin Man writes:
Forwarding once again my email, since it seems it has not gone through
to the list for the first time.
From: Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Debian and CDDL and DFSG
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnusol-users@gnusolaris.org
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:02:49 +0200
Hi all,
18 matches
Mail list logo
