On Sunday 23 August 2009 6:57:50 am Greg Harris wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:17:49 -0700
Chris Harshman r...@packetlaw.com wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 12:43 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 02:31:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
All that is for USA, right?
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:17:49 -0700
Chris Harshman r...@packetlaw.com wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 12:43 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 02:31:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that
way in other countries
* Miriam Ruiz:
All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that way in
other countries than USA, and probably UK, Canada and Australia too?
There is no such thing as a unilateral contract in Germany. Over
here, free software licenses are typically considered invitations to
enter
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 02:31:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that way in
other countries than USA, and probably UK, Canada and Australia too?
There is no such thing as a unilateral contract in Germany.
There's no such thing as a
On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 12:43 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 02:31:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that way in
other countries than USA, and probably UK, Canada and Australia too?
There is no such thing as
Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de writes:
* Miriam Ruiz:
All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that way in
other countries than USA, and probably UK, Canada and Australia too?
There is no such thing as a unilateral contract in Germany.
Nor anywhere, AFAIK. The idea is
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:04:53PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I don't think there are any problems with the AGPL and indeed I might
well consider using the AGPL for works of my own. I don't have time
That is not very interesting, because if you are the sole copyright holder, you
do not have to
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:27:42 +0100 Bill Allombert wrote:
[...]
0) Conflict with the The Free Software Definition:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The AGPL is in direct conflicts with the two paragraphs below:
I don't think the AGPLv3 actually is in conflict with what the FSF
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:23:21PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 20:32:10 MJ Ray wrote:
Here the scenario becomes impossible IMO - if Z is truly a bad actor,
Z will always either find a way to withhold their source code or
develop on an alternative A's
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 20:32:10 MJ Ray wrote:
Here the scenario becomes impossible IMO - if Z is truly a bad actor,
Z will always either find a way to withhold their source code or
develop on an alternative A's application. AGPL may hinder Z, but
would not prevent it. I hesitate to
I don't think there are any problems with the AGPL and indeed I might
well consider using the AGPL for works of my own. I don't have time
now to write a detailed rebuttal to each of Bill's points, I'm afraid.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com wrote: [...]
Here's what I think needs to be addressed if anyone wants to make
actual progress on this subject:
- What exactly is it that someone wants to do that they are prevented
from doing by the terms of the AGPL?
Use it on their website without being
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:45:41 +
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
This is helpful. Thanks. More in-line.
Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com wrote: [...]
Here's what I think needs to be addressed if anyone wants to make
actual progress on this subject:
- What exactly is it that someone
Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes:
(It ought to be remembered that contracts (including licenses) …
Whoa. Since when is a copyright license considered a contract?
Contracts require multipartite negotiation; I can't negotiate the
terms of a software license in most cases.
Free-software
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:51:14 +1100
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes:
(It ought to be remembered that contracts (including licenses) …
Whoa. Since when is a copyright license considered a contract?
Contracts require multipartite
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:51:14 +1100
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes:
(It ought to be remembered that contracts (including licenses) …
Whoa. Since when is a copyright license
2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under contract.
Um, no. Software licenses are one instance of a class of
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:57:11 pm Miriam Ruiz wrote:
2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:46:59 -0700
Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:51:14 +1100
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes:
(It ought to be remembered
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:57:11 +0100
Miriam Ruiz little.m...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote:
Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
grants of permission, so I can't see how you
Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com wrote:
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com wrote: [...]
- What exactly is it that someone wants to do that they are
prevented from doing by the terms of the AGPL?
Use it on their website without being liable for the cost of
Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: [...]
Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral
grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under contract.
Um, no. Software licenses are one instance of a class of
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:27:42 +0100
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
Hello Debian legal,
I'd like to share two issue I found with the AGPL, for the record.
REFERENCES:
The GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) is essentially the GNU
General Public License with
2009/3/23 Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com:
I do not profess any expertise or experience with Debian policies other
than a general reading. Nor do I think of myself as a defender or
critic of any particular variation of a free license that an author
might choose. From the various objections I
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:46:24AM -0400, Greg Harris wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:27:42 +0100
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
Hello Debian legal,
The AGPL has been the topic of multiple extended and heated discussions
during my short time subscribed to this
25 matches
Mail list logo
