On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, daniel wallace wrote:
This confusion gives rise to the myth that a copyright license is not a
contract.
I've read what you wrote, and I have read and heard what Eben Moglen has
said on this topic. IANAL, and I don't live in the United States, but
given the conflict in
Eben Moglen's theory of:
Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to
remain within the bounds of the license not because she
voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right
to act at all except as the license permits.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
is
daniel wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eben Moglen's theory of: Licenses are not contracts: ... is simply
legal nonsense.
This is basic stuff. A license is a permission that can be granted on a
unilateral basis (e.g., I grant you a license or permission to re-post
this message), whether or
a big sigh and yawwwn to mr. troll.
look, I don't mind an open discussion, but clearly that is not your
intent. by placing words like nonsense in your positions you remove
your self from the objective conversation.
Clay
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 03:41, daniel wallace wrote:
Eben Moglen's theory
I think this license is a good step. It addresses a number of the
concerns typically voiced by universities and colleges when they move to
do Open Source development and release. The jurisdictional section is
particularly well designed for University use.
At the Open Source Lab, we typically do
Le lundi 15 Mars 2004 21:35, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. a écrit :
It might help if you highlighted the changes (using color text or bold
facing). Is your explanation as to why you have declined to adopt the CUA
Office Public License limited to the desire to comply with regulations in
three
Just wanted to bring this up again. Did not have any comments on it
before. Also would like some input from others if you think this covers
derivatives, or other projects based on the licensed projects code.
Hi
I would like to submit the Open Project Public License (OPPL) for OSI
compliance.
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote:
1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license
provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this
license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, items that link
with the Software, items that link with
Alex,
Do you think section 5 covers this?
5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to
link, run, or interact in anyway with application programs or components
legally developed by you or by others.
Larry E. Masters
Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters
Alex,
Under section 5 the user would be able to use the editor if the editor
was legally created or obtained. At least this is what I would think.
May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are
wanting to do with the license is control code created to work with
the
Hi DJ,
On Mar 16, 2004, at 10:26 AM, DJ Anubis wrote:
Le lundi 15 Mars 2004 21:35, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. a crit:
It might help if you highlighted the changes (using color text or bold
facing). Is your explanation as to why you have declined to adopt the
CUA
Office Public License limited to the
Larry Masters scripsit:
May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are
wanting to do with the license is control code created to work with
the licensed software, control meaning that any software created to work
with it must be released under the same license and
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote:
Under section 5 the user would be able to use the editor if the
editor was legally created or obtained. At least this is what I
would think.
Agreed. My concern is not about the user of the editor, but about the
author of the editor. It seems odd to
John,
I do not agree that the GPL would work for this.
I have seen problems in other projects where someone creates an program
to work with another program but the source code is not released because
it is argued that the new program is not derived from the other, which
with my understanding
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote:
I have seen problems in other projects where someone creates an
program to work with another program but the source code is not
released because it is argued that the new program is not derived
from the other, which with my understanding of the GPL
Larry Masters scripsit:
I have seen problems in other projects where someone creates an program
to work with another program but the source code is not released because
it is argued that the new program is not derived from the other, which
with my understanding of the GPL and US copyright
John and Alex,
How does this sound?
Original QPL version:
1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license
provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this
license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, or software
items that link with the
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote:
Whole or partial distribution of the Software, *items that link
with the Software, items that link with a component of the Software,
or* items that interact with any portion of the Software to form an
extended version of the Software signifies
18 matches
Mail list logo
