On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> In this case she did "swim" in it, see also
> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm (which describes that case
> IMHO much better).
Thanks for the link. That should remind me to check anectdotes out
slightly more carefully.
Don Armstrong
--
Sentence
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030920 21:50]:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> > Contrary to popular belief, the McDonald's coffee case was not
> > frivolous.
> >
> > http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
> First off, hot coffee causes 2nd degree burns, not
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First off, hot coffee causes 2nd degree burns, not 3rd degree
> burns.[1]
Ordinary temperature coffee does indeed cause 2nd degree burns. This
is not true however for coffee served at 180 degrees Farenheit.
> Secondly, the punitive award by the jury o
Whoa. Digging around in the archives are we?
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
>>1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements
>>from time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower
>>court judges out there. Most of those settlements
Don Armstrong wrote:
1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements from
time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower court
judges out there. Most of those settlements (the Mc-D's coffee one for
instance) are often overturned or reduced in the appeals proce
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes the UnrealIRCd license:
> In order to continue with the download and installation of UnrealIRCd
> you must accept the following license agreement:
>
> [Full copy of GPL]
>
> The UnrealIRCd Team reserves the right to modify this agreement at
> anytime as long
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030902 19:20]:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:47:53AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > And: I don't know international law good enough to decide if (and
> > when) german law is applicable to software in debian. It is certainly
> > applicable between any german us
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:47:53AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> And: I don't know international law good enough to decide if (and
> when) german law is applicable to software in debian. It is certainly
> applicable between any german user and me, a german subject and
> resident. But almost everyth
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030901 12:35]:
> I'm not really sure what it means to make a "no warranty" clause
> "legally binding". If you are trying to avoid getting sued then you
> might be better off if you make a sincere effort to inform users of
> the potential risks rather than
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:49:04PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Only in the US. Most countries require the plaintiff actually have a
> > case before letting them in the courtroom.
>
> This isn't really true in the US as well. Frivolous lawsuits in t
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Of course. You have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time!
>
> Only in the US. Most countries require the plaintiff actually have a
> case before letting them in the c
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 04:01:59PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Of course. You have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time!
Only in the US. Most countries require the plaintiff actually have a
case before letting them in the courtroom.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andre
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:01:35PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 20:39]:
> > So, even if you do not accept the license but you do copy, modify,
> > and/or distribute the Program, you're still bound by the License.
>
> What about "use"? I th
IANAL, TINLA.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Mika Fischer wrote:
> Could you then comment on the quoted comment on a ruling in my first
> email?
This particular ruling is rather interesting, because the main issue
was the ability of the license agreement to compel arbitration, rather
than the generic warra
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:39:19PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> That doesn't change anything. Quote from the GPL:
> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense
Hi!
* Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 20:39]:
> So, even if you do not accept the license but you do copy, modify,
> and/or distribute the Program, you're still bound by the License.
What about "use"? I think that's the most important one here.
> Not accepting the GPL is not a wa
IANAL, TINLA
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 05:28:41PM +0200, Mika Fischer wrote:
> Hi, Edmund!
>
> * Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 17:03]:
> > Of course. You have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time!
>
> Oh well, I think you know what I meant. :)
>
> > However, in
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The whole point of my hypothetical example is that I don't accept the
> license and use the software nevertheless.
> How could the GPL then be of any help?
People don't have to accept the GPL unless they are redistributing. I
would guess that the GPL helps beca
* Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 10:53]:
> And that seems OK to me. Although you can probably restrict yourself to
> the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" part.
I'm sorry but this is wrong. You have to include the whole GPL as you
did.
cf. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamb
Hi, Edmund!
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 17:03]:
> Of course. You have the right to sue anyone for anything at any time!
Oh well, I think you know what I meant. :)
> However, in their defence the FSF will probably use the following
> elements of the GPL as evidence that
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> > signed it.
>
> And what does that mean? May I download Emacs, not accept the GPL, use
> it, run into problems with my business because of using it and then sue
> the FSF?
Of course. You
Hi, Edmund!
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 12:12]:
> I'm not really sure what it means to make a "no warranty" clause
> "legally binding". If you are trying to avoid getting sued then you
> might be better off if you make a sincere effort to inform users of
> the potential
Mika Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The main issue for the developers is AFAIK the "no warranty" clause and
> how to make it legally binding.
I'm not really sure what it means to make a "no warranty" clause
"legally binding". If you are trying to avoid getting sued then you
might be better off if
Hi, all!
[Full-quote for debian-legal]
[Please CC me and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Though I no longer intend to package UnrealIRCd I would like to help the
developers in regard to the licensing issues.
The main issue for the developers is AFAIK the "no warranty" clause and
how to make it legally binding
24 matches
Mail list logo
