On 8/5/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
a self-selected crew of ideologues with brazen contempt
for real-world law and no fiduciary relationship to anyone is not too
swift -- whether or not they have law degrees (or university chairs in
law and legal
On 8/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read, and am enlightened! To repeatedly disclaim authority, either
as a representative of the community or as a subject matter expert, is
to self-select as an authority! To acknowledge error, in response to
concrete evidence brought to
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
I think that sounds lovely in theory... however, I really have no sense of
how the ftpmasters synthesis the debates that go on here.
I don't think many do. I watch the effects and try to work out
what's happening. Sometimes it's good, sometimes bad,
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
a self-selected crew of ideologues with brazen contempt
for real-world law and no fiduciary relationship to anyone is not too
swift -- whether or not they have law degrees (or university chairs in
law and legal history). Not all debian-legal participants deserve to
be
Ken Arromdee writes:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
I'm not sure that's a distinction.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
For that reason, A non-lawyer is equally suited to point out potential
wording problems in a contract as a lawyer.
I don't believe anybody has ever disputed this. It would be kinda
silly, since that's what we do around here all the
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
I'm not sure that's a distinction. After all, a fee applies
Ken Arromdee writes:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
I'm not sure that's a distinction.
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The law that creates the warranty also allows its disclaimer; it
allows a developer to refuse the cost that the law incurs. In that
way, the disclaimer reverts the cost balance to its state in the
absense of the law. This is distinct from a
Michael K. Edwards writes:
Anyway, as to personal jurisdiction -- this is a legal principle lost
in the mists of time, adapted in modern times to fit the realities of
commerce without personal contact. A choice of venue clause is not
In sum, trying to shoehorn any of the warranty / liability
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
non-free restrictions or requirements on licensees. Argument from
authority will not change that,
Michael K. Edwards writes:
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
non-free restrictions or requirements on licensees. Argument from
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not meant to equate DFSG freeness with what can go into Debian,
but DFSG freeness is an important threshold issue. If my messages
misled on that point, I apologize. There are other factors to
consider, but this thread was originally
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:46:50PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 8/1/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All rambling and ad hominem attacks aside, DFSG analysis is not at all
about risk; it is about determining whether or not the license imposes
non-free restrictions or
On 8/1/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Myself, I would no more redistribute a peer-to-peer client offered
under a license like BitTorrent's than I would play Russian Roulette
with a loaded Uzi. But YMMV.
I suppose I should explain that. I may or may not have used one
On 8/1/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you believe that posting your life story to debian-legal qualifies
as grounding in real-world law?
It qualifies as a reminder to anyone who's considering taking me
seriously that they're doing so based on the arguments I raise and
whatever
On 7/30/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
... choice-of-venue clauses just keep people from playing
the venue shopping game.
Is there actually anywhere in the world that a choice-of-venue clause
in a contract of adhesion is worth the paper it isn't written on? I
wouldn't think
On Sunday 31 July 2005 12:13 am, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/30/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
... choice-of-venue clauses just keep people from playing
the venue shopping game.
Is there actually anywhere in the world that a choice-of-venue clause
in a contract of
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
Sean Kellogg skellogg at u.washington.edu writes:
[8 Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8]
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
But if they are willing to drop a venue
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 05:20:40PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Saturday 30 July 2005 04:38 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
But if they are willing to drop a
Francesco Poli frx at winstonsmith.info writes:
I've just re-read the relevant threads, and I do not agree that the two
above mentioned clauses are the only issues.
[...]
Consequently, the issues to be solved are, at least,
. one in clause 4b
. one in 4c
. _two_ in 13
Okay, I have
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
Sean Kellogg skellogg at u.washington.edu writes:
[8 Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8]
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are
On Sunday 31 July 2005 07:44 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
An undergrad law student. Letting law undergrads write licenses is at
least as bad as letting CS undergrads write code (and CS students
don't have to undergo further training before they can practice). And
lawyers who've just passed their
Now, I recognize that I am still in school and haven't taken the bar.
But
I'm no dummy. That being said, I have a lot to learn... but based on the
conversations on this list, I think I'm about as qualified as anyone else
to
point out that the term available is different from distribute and
It amuses me to make the comparison between Mr. Kellogg's credentials
and my own. I am no undergrad either; shedding that status took me
four tries, two universities, and just over seven years. I graduated
in Physics with no distinction to speak of, in December 1995, and it
was rather an
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
In contrast to choice of law, choice of venue requires users who are
not normally subject to that court's personal jurisdiction to give up
a right they normally have to use the software. Take your pick
whether that
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:35 pm, Michael Poole wrote:
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
In contrast to choice of law, choice of venue requires users who are
not normally subject to that court's personal jurisdiction to give up
a right they normally
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:03:18PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But, if I grant your point, and accept that the DFSG protects my right to
all those things, why doesn't it invalidate licenses that waive liability
to the distributor? Isn't that my inaliable right... a fee I must pay in
Sean Kellogg writes:
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:35 pm, Michael Poole wrote:
It is not discrimination: every user is treated identically.
Same with the petting an animal... everyone has to do it. Did you know that
pre-18 years olds CANNOT agree to a waiver of liability? Seems waivers
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
I'm not sure that's a distinction. After all, a fee applies
On Saturday 30 July 2005 07:52 am, Michael Janssen wrote:
Hello legal gurus:
I have been trying to get the authors of BitTorrent to change their
license (the BitTorrent Open Source License) in order to make it
suitable for inclusion in Debian. The BitTorrent Open Source License
has been
Sean Kellogg skellogg at u.washington.edu writes:
[8 Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8]
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free. But
if
they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for users of
Debian! I'm surprised that folks on this list are
On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
Sean Kellogg skellogg at u.washington.edu writes:
[8 Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8]
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
But if they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free. But
if
they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for users of
Debian! I'm surprised that folks on this list are comfortable with such
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 04:23:51PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Oh, wow... here my thought was people felt six months wasn't long enough...
not too long. I suppose that certainly could be a problem for the manner in
which Debian distributes, however, I don't think it is a DFSG problem.
It's
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:52:12 -0500 Michael Janssen wrote:
[...]
I have been trying to get the authors of BitTorrent to change their
license (the BitTorrent Open Source License) in order to make it
suitable for inclusion in Debian.
Your efforts are really appreciated.
The BitTorrent Open
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:55:33 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
The Source Code for any version of Licensed
Product or Modifications that you distribute must remain available
for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became
available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent
On Saturday 30 July 2005 04:38 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
But if they are willing to drop a venue requirement, that's great for
users of Debian! I'm
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Saturday 30 July 2005 04:38 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
I'm surprised that folks on this list are comfortable with such
strong choice-of-law provisions.
Choice of law provisions
39 matches
Mail list logo
