/organisation?
That's a good point. It makes me think that Prof. Morgenstern may
have been using the FSF's disclaimer language for a purpose other
than the purpose for which it was originally intended.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | This is a new focus for the security
http
or she doesn't claim any copyright. I
don't know if there are court cases that interpret the effect of this
disclaimer in various jurisdictions.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | This is a new focus for the security
http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | community. The actual user of the PC
/legalnotices.jsp
If you modified an application which implements PDF so that it was
incompatible with Adobe's specifications, you might be outside the
scope of Adobe's patent license grant.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Very frankly, I am opposed to people
http://www.loyalty.org
of
those laws.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
lawsuit.)
On the other hand, not everyone agrees that the brute force
algorithm is legal in the U.S. (Possible implications of New York
lawsuit.)
If you can wait a while, these legal issues might become a bit clearer.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp
.
But it is definitely one of the most confusing.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Seth David Schoen writes:
accreted on top of the copyright system, so that authors have become
quite insistent about their absolute ownership of their work, and
I should probably say that agents and publishers have become quite
insistent about their absolute ownership of the authors' work
/philosophy/why-free.html
The FSF has other interim goals, which are less extreme. People who
don't agree with the FSF's long-term goals still have plenty of
reasons to use the GPL or support the FSF in other ways.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp
or wrong is mistaken in
general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to
say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things
upside down.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
shock horror
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 03:12:14PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
That scheme is totally consistent with the intentions of DFSG-free licenses.
Unfortunetly, it's not consistent with many of the non-DFSG-free licenses.
You'd be violating licenses if you did
David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Henning Makholm writes:
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
But that particular issue is moot as far as this license goes. Since this
license does not even _attempt_ to modify the GPL, the interpretation of
the GPL is very clear and unambiguous: just as Brian says, the GPL
and
acrimony, and it is perhaps better not to bring it up again, except to
indicate that there is a (very controversial) precedent.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http
with effectively modifying the GPL, then the situation
is different, but certainly the GPL would like to be polymorph-resistant.
(Sorry, new NetHack release, you know.)
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure
William T Wilson writes:
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire
distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was
assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
In short, you can't do that. You can't
Anthony Towns writes:
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:05:58PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Peter S Galbraith writes:
(I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
legal; I don't know that it is. If it's called a `license', it's
different that saying you can have
it?
Seth David Schoen wrote:
Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire
distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was
assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
If it's a matter of relicensing GPLed code to forbid the use of EULAs,
at all
you to agree to their proprietary software terms.
Having to be 18 has nothing to do with it (other than that it's a
OK, you leave me no choice:
http://ishmael.geecs.org/~sigma/reductiones-ab-absurda/big-beard-software/
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when
Peter S Galbraith writes:
Seth David Schoen wrote:
Henning Makholm writes:
Caspian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making
a
completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
prohibits
source license. But that doesn't mean that it conflicts with the
open source licenses of components of the system.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org
Oops, my example is less useful than it should have been because of a DNS
problem.
My Big Beard Agreement distribution of GCC may be found at
http://ishmael.loyalty.org/~sigma/reductiones-ab-absurda/big-beard-software/
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when
violated the GPL is also a fairly important question,
since some people in this discussion initially proposed suing Corel for
alleged copyright infringement.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps
recognized owner.)
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
of Congress might be difficult,
because this as an argument against this entire provision of the DMCA. But
it is based on what is probably regarded as fair use.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure
to collaborate with Corel.
Maybe that will cause Corel to conclude that they need to clarify some of
the points that are making people upset, or maybe they will ignore the
criticism.
But if you want to call their behavior _illegal_, you need to show why it
is illegal.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL
Caspian writes:
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
This trend concerns me, too, but if you want to stop them, you will need
to show why what they are doing is not only nasty but also illegal.
Remember that the DFSG _prohibits_ licenses from forbidding the use of
non-free
. (For instance,
the GPL has been interpreted as forbidding binding NDAs that cover GPLed
software; I don't see that other licenses even attempt to do that.)
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps
authors and contributors.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
that the
contents of the standard Red Hat Linux CD were now supposed to contain only
free and semi-free software, or only redistributable software, or something
along those lines -- I thought that all proprietary software had been purged
from Red Hat's main distribution.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL
might wish to consult a local lawyer and/or verify the sources given
in these studies yourself, though.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF
were licensed under the GPL, but that the system
as a whole was not?
The GPLed programs within Corel Linux presumably retain all of the notices
required by the GPL.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure
[trimming RMS]
Caspian writes:
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
You might be forgetting that the product called Corel Linux is a
collection of software containing both proprietary software _and_ free
software. Because this collection contains proprietary software from
being violated, and the problem doesn't get fixed,
then, by all means, bring a lawsuit. But I don't think that most people
have even begun that process.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps
Amy Fong writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would again urge everyone to consider careful the difference between
- Things That Annoy You About Corel
- Mistakes That Corel Made
- Things That You Can Sue Corel Over
Again
Bruce Perens writes:
From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I had put up a web page with my objections, and sent private e-mail about it
to the OSI board.
Sorry, Seth, that was not what I was talking about. We did a public review
of the ATT license on license-discuss. Where were you
Bruce Perens writes:
From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The OSI does worry about export restrictions as license conditions; that
was a problem with the original Apple Public Source License. There is
still some controversy about that license, but the OSI got Apple to remove
Bruce Perens writes:
From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some software distributors make you say I am aware of the export laws
and some make you say I promise to abide by the export laws. There is a
_huge_ difference between the two policies; the former is doing you a
service
have those problems.
You have some permissions, and you always have them, no matter what else
happens. If someone else doesn't like that, that person will have to sue
you.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have
-- but I think it's an awfully
good model of the way things might be done.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke
controversy about that license, but the OSI got Apple to remove
the export-restriction language from the license entirely.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/| have leisure; for perhaps you will
http://www.loyalty.org
Joey Hess writes:
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/download.html:
graphviz is now OSI Certified Open Source Software.
I'm checking with the OSI Board about that. I think there is likely some
mistake.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study
Brian Ristuccia writes:
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 11:31:19AM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Brian Ristuccia writes:
Wouldn't seizing said machines violate the electronic communication
privacy
act or something similar by interefering with email on those machines as
well
could be very helpful for programmers in general -- who could try to use
it to argue that government interference with the free software development
process was grounds for a first amendment lawsuit. :-)
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
http
and free software _for a particular
person_. It seems to me that the distinction has not yet been clarified
enough for a world with many different jurisdictions recognizing vastly
different legal rights.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
http
than licensing.) Since the
support for conventional ciphers in ssh1 is fairly modular, it should be
pretty easy for someone to remove it in order to produce a free package.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/| have
ssh1 also audits the result (e.g. the OpenBSD team,
if they're interested).
This is certainly a roundabout process, but allows the good parts of the
original free ssh1 code base to be preserved.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
http
control
laws is ambiguous, and could be construed as a bizarre inclusion by
reference of _all_ trade laws in the entire world.
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They said look at the light we're giving you, / And the darkness
that we're saving you from. -- Dar
Chip Salzenberg writes:
According to Seth David Schoen:
If the current OSD is all they see, there's a lot of room for
confusion, perhaps because of the number of things the DFSG took for
granted.
OSI has never made an explicit or implicit contract to call something
Open Source just
Apple's actions. What it most needs is to be made a little shorter. :-)
--
Seth David Schoen / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He said, This is what the king who will reign over you will do. And they
said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the
nations. (1 Sam 8
49 matches
Mail list logo
