On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:04:58 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
The software was legally distributed
to me, and that gives me some entitlements under copyright law.
Which ones?
Please explain (IANAL, hence I'm not so knowledgeable...).
Most copyright laws state
Francesco Poli wrote:
The software was legally distributed
to me, and that gives me some entitlements under copyright law.
Which ones?
Please explain (IANAL, hence I'm not so knowledgeable...).
Most copyright laws state that you have certain rights to use the
software if you legally
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:39:56 +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:00:28 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
Maybe
when Christiaan, the current FIGlet maintainer, comes back from
vacation and release a new version with the license changes,
Which license changes?
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:33:49 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:39:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Still haven't subscribed, but I'm reading the archives
periodically.
It's mandatory, you know. It's just easier to manage...
Huh? Subscribing to debian-legal
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:55:52 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:39:56 +0200, Francesco Poli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:00:28 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
Maybe
when Christiaan, the current FIGlet maintainer, comes back from
vacation and release a
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:05:08 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
When accepting the terms
of the GPL, I also must give up certain rights about warranties
that I normally expect to have.
I didn't see that way: I saw the disclaimer of warranty as a
declaration(valid even if I don't
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:00:28 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
Still haven't subscribed, but I'm reading the archives periodically.
It's mandatory, you know. It's just easier to manage...
I'm in the middle of a lot of stuff -- just gave a talk about Debian
at the university's 2nd annual week on
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:39:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Still haven't subscribed, but I'm reading the archives periodically.
It's mandatory, you know. It's just easier to manage...
Huh? Subscribing to debian-legal isn't mandatory.
--
Glenn Maynard
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:56:54 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
You're right. The license is intended to be a common-law
contract. Hence the phrases about assent. So the idea is that the
licensee has agreed to everything in the license.
Being a common-law-contract is
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:43:16 +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: No need to Cc: (or To:) me, as I'm a debian-legal subscriber.
Instead, I'm Cc:ing Carlos Laviola, since he asked to be Cc:ed
(or did you subscribe in the meanwhile, Carlos?)
Still haven't subscribed,
Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11) Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. Any action or suit relating
to this License may be brought only in the courts of a jurisdiction
wherein the Licensor resides or in which Licensor conducts its primary
business [...]
Is this choice of venue?
It
Francesco Poli wrote:
Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the
Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original
Work that Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy
this obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:00:35 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Weird, anyway: Licensor promises to distribute source, but it seems
that there is no requirement for the *licensee* to do so...
I thought the point of the AFL was that it was effectively
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:21:44 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
I would also like to know if anyone here has a canonical URL for the
definitions of the dissident test, the dictator test, etc.
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
See in particular the answer to question number 9...
--
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:00:35 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I thought the point of the AFL was that it was effectively
attribution-only. So you don't have to give anyone source code
if you distribute an AFL-licensed binary.
Indeed. This license looks like a
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:56:54 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
OK, but both parties have to agree to exclude it: so this license
smells more like a common-law-contract, rather than a unilateral
grant. The licensee has to give up the possibility to have the
Convention applied, in order to
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:21:44 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
Dear -legal friends,
The FIGlet people are considering changing the license of the entire
distribution from Artistic to the AFL 2.1.
Hi! I really much appreciate your effort in solving the issues with the
FIGlet package! :)
I've
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:21:44PM -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote:
3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the
preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
all available documentation describing how to modify the Original
Work. Licensor hereby agrees
On 2004-10-14 18:21:44 +0100 Carlos Laviola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
9) Acceptance and Termination. If You distribute copies of the
Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort
under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to
the terms of this
Dear -legal friends,
The FIGlet people are considering changing the license of the entire
distribution from Artistic to the AFL 2.1. I've found some bits of the
license rather strange -- too many talk about patents and
jurisdictions -- but it might just be me.
Here's Robert Millan's (nyu) take
20 matches
Mail list logo
