On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:36:16AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I believe that the legal systems of US states cooperate much more than
those of different countries. Also, a dispute involving several states
would probably be either escalated to federal court, or require you to
appear in
On Jul 23, 2004, at 11:32, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if the
defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or
otherwise has
not the physical means to be present ? And in this case, how could the
judge
make the judgement
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jul 23, 2004, at 11:32, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if
the defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or
otherwise has not the physical means to be present ? And in this
case, how could the
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:30:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:58:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:25:16PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued discriminate against people
not
having the time or money to play legal
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:16:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:25:16PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
Well, any licence allowing the user to be sued
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The case at hand here applies to an hypothetical cost which you may encoure if
you are violating the licence, or if upstream decides to become mad (or mad at
you) and try lawsuit harrasment.
See the difference. One is an immediate and incontournable cost,
Ok, this seems indeed similar to what i was told. Now, what would be the
legality of that claim in the licence ?
I think that such a clause would be binding in the USA. Courts have
held that choice of venue clauses in click-through agreements are
binding (Groff v America Online in RI
Cool, I'm arguing against both Lex and Luther.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:21:02PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would point to an even more significant difference: the legal
harrassment scenario cannot be avoided under any circumstances. No
And because they're unavoidable, we should allow
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
| Choice of Law
|
| This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
| settled by
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
Versailles is probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a
lawyer of similar
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
Versailles is probably
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:58:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cost of hiring a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Upto now, the identified problems are threefold, so we can start subthread for
analysing and discussing them separatedly. Please don't read to much into my
tentative of concise sumary below for each of those, and argument clearly in
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-23 13:25:48 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
Versailles is
probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a lawyer of similar
competence
and fluent
Please do not cc me. I am subscribed. I have tried to respect your
requests in the past.
On 2004-07-23 16:00:10 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:50:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[...], the need to hire a lawyer local to Versailles is a
significant
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:26AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:21:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Examples of that are pre-trial conferences, where both sides must be
physically present (either in person or through counsel) before the
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:55:16PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based on
the licence ?
How would that work? How can you sue someone based on a unilateral
permission that they gave
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors based on
the licence ?
I am not sure what in the license would give rise to a cause for
action against the authors: it grants others more rights than they
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:33:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:04:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And as said above, what about folk wanting to sue the ocaml authors
based on
the licence ?
I am not sure what in the license
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How would that work? How can you sue someone based on a unilateral
permission that they gave you?
Because upstream used one of your modification in a private version of the
software, without including it in the QPLed version for example ?
Isn't that more a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:25:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
| Choice of Law
| This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
| settled by the Court of Versailles.
Ok, this is the last point of contention. The choice of laws seems to be
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:32:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if the
defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or otherwise has
not the physical means to be present ?
You believe it's ok to assume all French
Sven Luther writes:
live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
Nice for doing X?
I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question at
hand here.
Contract law can override that. That does not mean we have to accept
that kind of override as
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
Nice for doing X?
I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question at
hand here.
Contract law can
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
Nice for doing X?
I don't think so, unless contract law overrides it. Which is the question
at
hand here.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:36:57PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:22:04PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
live and work and do action X in Versailles, could someone sue you in
Nice for doing X?
I don't think so,
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of
things.
So in general, you believe it's ok to inflict all kinds of risks on
users who
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of
things.
So in general, you
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:55:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well can you propose a real example of what we are considering here ? An
example for which upstream sues an random user over the QPL. Also such a
case
were we
30 matches
Mail list logo
