Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* To my knowledge, in the U.S, a statement from all the copyright
holders of a work is sufficient to place it in the public domain, if
they want to do so before it would otherwise pass into the public
domain through expiration of
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:07:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing
solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious,
opportunistic bastards who
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
but nobody can cite any clear indication of what the legal effect of
such as declaration is: There has been no relevant caselaw.
I'm not surprised that there is no relevant caselaw, however, it's
common to assume that placing (or dedicating) the work in (or
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm not surprised that there is no relevant caselaw, however, it's
common to assume that placing (or dedicating) the work in (or to) the
public domain is enough for the work to be in the public domain.
You can assume it. Your assumption is most
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
That is _not_ necessary in order for the notion to be doubtful. It
pretty much suffices that no statutory mechanism whatsoever exists to
enact that intention, and for the outcome to be both indeterminate
and mostly likely jurisdiction-dependent.
The
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The absense of a statutory mechanism isn't really at issue here. There
are hosts of contractual forms for which there is no applicable
statute.[1] The US legal system is not statute bound, as it is a
common law system.
Allow me to reiterate, then,
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 the US
[Claims of my density willfully exceeding DU snipped]
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Allow me to reiterate, then, what I believe I've already mentioned
once before: There is also an absence of caselaw.
We've established that. I maintain that the absence of caselaw is
merely
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:41:37PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* To my knowledge, in the U.S, a statement from all the copyright
holders of a work is sufficient to place it in the public domain, if
they want to do so before it would otherwise
Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Okay. I mostly concur with Don Armstrong's challenges to this, but I
have one more add.
IANAL, but, when I posted my analysis of the matter to the OSI
license-discuss mailing list, OSI general counsel Larry Rosen replied
You've answered it
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
We've established that. I maintain that the absence of caselaw is
merely attributable to the difficulty of finding an actionable claim.
Thus, you have an opinion.
You maintain that it's because dedicating a work to the public domain
is meaningless.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You maintain that it's because dedicating a work to the public domain
is meaningless.
This I did not say.
It's either meaningless or meaningfull. I can't quite reconcile the
idea of it being both.
If you're
* 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 rely
Hi!
Someone raised an idea on IRC that I might see as valid:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite
against a OSL
Don Armstrong:
You should be able to find caselaw involving a case where a work was
improperly placed in the public domain (ie, the person dedicating it
to the public isn't the copyright holder,) but as the US system is a
law in action, you'll need to find a case where someone placed the
work
Quoting Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Have you heard of the common law?
Oddly enough, I can't help noticing that your caselaw citations are missing.
But Don Armstrong has a point: nobody but the copyright holder has standing
to sue. If a court was convinced that the copyright
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite
against a OSL licensed
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 everything
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (quoting the Sun RPC license):
but are not authorized to license or
distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
program developed by the user.
I interpret that to mean that once the RPC code has
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite
against a OSL licensed
* 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 user and
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 11:49]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups)? It clearly
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Isn't Section 10 of the OSL (Mutual Termination for Patent Action) a
violation of Section 5 of the DFSG (No Discrimination Against
Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1:http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html
I'm glad the uncredited author has an opinion.
The work _is_ credited to Richard Stim, a practicing lawyer
specializing in intellectual property and licensing.
This is not legal advice.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So, what do you recommend for someone who really *wants* to put
something in the public domain? Such as, for instance, my web page
http://twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html ? I haven't seen any
common license which is
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:32:42PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
This sort of rationale is usually bogus.
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
Thats one of the reason why we put software that is
* Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 15:32]:
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-02 18:46]:
In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is non-free because it
discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
Thats one of
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
This I did not say.
It's either meaningless or meaningfull. I can't quite reconcile the
idea of it being both.
I didn't say that, either.
Don, if you're going to be spending the rest of the month inviting me
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It follows directly from contract law.
The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from the
fact that a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to the
public to use, modify, copy, etc.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law.
Copyright Law is what grants you the rights to a work which you then
exchange or give away using a License or Contract. Contract Law is what
allows you to establish a legally binding
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:26:27PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from the
fact that a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to the
public to use, modify, copy, etc. would be founded in copyright law,
rather than copyright
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:26:27PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law.
Copyright Law is what grants you the rights to a work which you then
exchange or give away using a License or Contract.
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 09:12:38PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:26:27PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law.
Copyright Law is what grants you the rights to a work which you then
exchange or give away using
And that seems OK to me. Although you can probably restrict yourself to
the TERMS AND CONDITIONS part.
This brief citation does not show what case he was talking about.
If we're talking about use of the GNU GPL as such, the preamble may
not be removed. It is, in effect, a sort of
That begs the question, are the practical problems of the GFDL
basically the same (though of lesser magnitude) than those of the
4-clause BSD license? :)
It's pretty apparent that the majority of the people here disagree with
you about that, and have presented many, many, many
This is an illuminating comparison, because the practical problems of
the GFDL (and I won't claim there are none) are basically of the same
kind (though of a lower magnitude) than those of the 4-clause BSD
^^^
Replace this with greater
Branden Robinson wrote:
I have seven questions for you based on this episode:
Branden is trying to make innocent things look bad; shame on him.
Given the interview itself and the note I added later, both my views
and the events involving GNU/LinEx are clear enough. So I won't
answer his
38 matches
Mail list logo
