On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
However, I do agree that it's not necessary to fight this battle right
now, as the OSL 2.0 is defective in other, less controversial, respects.
I think it's not controversial that the OSL software patent clause is
overbroad.
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:47:28PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
In general I think the free software community would be best served by
licenses that strongly discourage patent actions. So I think it is
desirable for us to interpret the DFSG in a manner that allows for
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:47:28PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
In general I think the free software community would be best served by
licenses that strongly discourage patent actions. So I think it is
desirable for us to interpret the DFSG in a manner that allows for
such licenses while not
It's been several days with no activity in this thread.
Can someone please summarize it? I realize the original specific
instance motivating this discussion has been resolved (at least it
appears that way), but I still think it's worthwhile for us to document
why we find the OSL 2.0
On Sunday 11 April 2004 19.49, Walter Landry wrote:
I thought this was no different than from the GPL, it is just more
clearly stated here in the OSL. But perhaps I am wrong?
I use Google. If Google used OSL licensed code, then they would have
to make the source available. That is not the
Anders Torger wrote:
snip
As I see it, this #9 is a sort of belt-and-braces clause which is more
or less redundant.
This is non-free. Requiring users to implement click-wrap provisions is a
substantial restriction modification of the most annoying sort.
The traditional way of distributing
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be modified
without the
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
This brings up the question (once again): is a legal text, such as a
copyright license, copyrightable? In which jurisdictions?
Not in the US. No idea about other countries.
About once a month I seem to be running into this
On 2004-04-10 20:47:28 +0100 Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL
MJ 2.0 is not DFSG-free because it terminates copyright
MJ permission for any software patent action, including ones
MJ unrelated to the covered
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
This brings up the question (once again): is a legal text, such as a
copyright license, copyrightable? In which jurisdictions?
Not in the US. No idea about other countries.
About once a month I seem
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
However, the courts apparently never uphold claims of infrignement
based on the use of essentially-identical (boilerplate) legal text
in other contracts or licenses. (I think there was a case where the
supplier of fill-in-the-blank forms sued for
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
However, the courts apparently never uphold claims of infrignement
based on the use of essentially-identical (boilerplate) legal text
in other contracts or licenses. (I think there was a case where the
supplier of
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 09:15:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Perhaps you could explain the status of license and contract texts, since
the case quoted below is of no help whatsoever. These are not, as far as I
can tell, the law -- they are not laws or regulations -- and they are
routinely
Adam Kessel wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 09:15:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Perhaps you could explain the status of license and contract texts, since
the case quoted below is of no help whatsoever. These are not, as far as
I can tell, the law -- they are not laws or regulations --
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be modified
without the express written permission
* Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040411 09:55]:
This brings up the question (once again): is a legal text, such as a
copyright license, copyrightable? In which jurisdictions?
In Germany, there is no exception for legal texts. There is however
one that laws (more exact: material laws) are
On Saturday 10 April 2004 15.44, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL 2.0 is
not DFSG-free because it terminates copyright permission for any
software patent action, including ones unrelated to the covered
software. The Licensor is also free to
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:19:11 +0200 Anders Torger wrote:
#5 places a distribution-like burden on certain types of use (e.g.,
use as part of a web server and you must distribute source).
I thought this was no different than from the GPL, it is just more
clearly stated here in the OSL. But
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:44:18 -0400 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This license is Copyright (C) 2003 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this
license without modification. This license may not be
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 11:19:11AM +0200, Anders Torger wrote:
Many has said that because of this, GPL is not enforcable in most
software packages, since they do not have click-wrap installation
procedures.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
Anders Torger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 April 2004 15.44, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL 2.0 is
not DFSG-free because it terminates copyright permission for any
software patent action, including ones unrelated to the
Hi all,
I'm the maintainer of the brutefir package and I received the mail
below from Anders Torger, author of BruteFIR.
Please could you answer to his question?
Thanks,
Free Ekanayaka
PS: as me and Anders are not subscribed to debian-legal, please just
keep us in Cc: when replying
On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please could you answer to his question?
I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see it in the
forwarded email.
For the question in the subject line: I still think that OSL 2.0 is
not DFSG-free because
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please could you answer to his question?
I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see it in the
forwarded email.
I think it was whether or not it would pass the DFSG, so
On Saturday 10 April 2004 11.51, you wrote:
To me, the easiest course would be to issue seperate copyright and
patent licences which do not interact. We could then considers them
individually without playing hunt the interaction and people in
swpat-free areas (including Sweden for now?) may be
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ On 2004-04-10 10:01:03 +0100 Free Ekanayaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ wrote:
Please could you answer to his question?
MJ I am not sure what question you mean, because I couldn't see
MJ it in the forwarded email.
MJ For the question
26 matches
Mail list logo
