Robert,
I am really interested in this stuff. First all, I have to say that I
suspect a tad bit of paranoia in the reporting about what's happening
overseas. What sources are you quoting that talk about criminalization
for patent infringement? I'd like to read that stuff. Russell McOrmond
was
Under Utah law, the elements of promissory estoppel are:
(1) The promisee acted with prudence and in reasonable
reliance on a promise made by the promisor;
(2) the promisor knew that the promisee had relied on
the promise which the promisor should reasonably expect
to induce action or
Daniel,
Could you please clarify for a non-lawyer where you see the
Public domain mistake here (the Subject of your message)?
If my understanding is correct, you are saying that if a permissible
open source license agreement is not enforceable then the source code
is in public domain for
Hi Ken,
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 20:16, Ken Brown wrote:
I am really interested in this stuff. First all, I have to say that I
suspect a tad bit of paranoia in the reporting about what's happening
overseas.
Not overseas for me. I'm based in the Scotland, very much part of the EU for
daniel wallace scripsit:
Under Utah law, the elements of promissory estoppel are:
(1) The promisee acted with prudence and in reasonable
reliance on a promise made by the promisor;
(2) the promisor knew that the promisee had relied on
the promise which the promisor should
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
daniel wallace scripsit:
Under Utah law, the elements of promissory estoppel are:
(1) The promisee acted with prudence and in reasonable
reliance on a promise made by the promisor;
(2) the promisor knew that the promisee had relied on
Daniel,
I don't think your analysis is correct. Promissory estoppel is a contract
doctrine that has nothing to do with a bare license like the GPL.
/Larry Rosen
-Original Message-
From: daniel wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:27 PM
To: [EMAIL
Ken Brown wrote:
[...]
I am really interested in this stuff. First all, I have to say
that I suspect a tad bit of paranoia in the reporting about what's
happening overseas. What sources are you quoting that talk about
criminalization for patent infringement?
Sources in opposition to the
If the GPL is a bare license,then what binds the two
mutually disjoint permissions in a distributed
derivative work. How is distribution authorized?
There are two copyright authors in a derivative work,
the preexisting authorizing author and modifying author.
In a bare license or unilateral
Greetings,
We submitted our proposed License several weeks ago and havent seen any
response. Can I get confirmation that it was recieved?
--
Chris Tusa
Linisys, Computing Evolution
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
504.464.4610 x1
- Shark Linux Software
- Linux Hardware Products
- Consulting
--
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, daniel wallace wrote:
Anyone who could show they had invested time and effort in reliance on
promised copyright permissions could claim promissory estoppel to
continue developing and expanding projects into the future.
I've been trying to wrap my head around this and
Section 103 (b) of the Copyright Act says:
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work
extends only to the material contributed by the author
of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting
material employed in the work, and does not imply any
exclusive right in the preexisting material.
Note: IANAL, I just hang around with and enjoy conversations with lawyers
and law students.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, daniel wallace wrote:
There are two copyright authors in a derivative work,
the preexisting authorizing author and modifying author.
In a bare license or unilateral permission, by
daniel wallace scripsit:
Section 103 (b) of the Copyright Act says:
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work
extends only to the material contributed by the author
of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting
material employed in the work, and does not imply any
exclusive
14 matches
Mail list logo
