to the colloquy) is that when
it's over, it's over. People can decide for themselves now what these
arguments and emotive behaviors add up to.
Regards to all.
Eben
--
Eben Moglenv: 212-461-1901
Professor of Law, Columbia Law School f: 212-580-0898 moglen@
Founding
You seem determined to take offense, Mr Cowan.
In the first place, I think you might have missed the point of the
Shakespeare quotation preceding the remark you object to. I didn't
compare Mr Rosen to a 1L. I wrote that the unavailability of specific
performance in contract is 1L material. I
On Thursday, 15 August 2013, Richard Stallman wrote:
Tahoe-LAFS is licensed to the public under the Transitive Grace
Period Public Licence 1.0 [*]. Tahoe-LAFS is Free and Open
software. The Transitive Grace Period Public Licence is an
Open Source licence.
Is that
On Friday, 16 August 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
In the more traditional legal analysis, regardless of the wisdom of
such a license, we prefer to treat written promises relating to
future actions as binding upon the person making the offer -- at
least where there is some form of
Yes, it is simple. I am asserting that in no meaningful sense is your
agreement enforceable, if during the period of the proprietary
agreement your promisor revokes and refuses to issue the program under
free license. You are implying that the remedy for breach of the
contract in that situation
No doubt my nature is subdued to what it works in, like the dyer's
hand.
But the resemblance is hardly accidental.
Eben
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
structure of free software commerce. The incorrect
architectural ambition to replace the legal role of the intermediaries
with better licenses or contribution agreements leads to numerous
confusions, of which the present conversation is just a minor one.
Eben
--
Eben Moglen
about. Really, you can trust me to know
how free software licenses basically work.
Eben
--
Eben Moglenv: 212-461-1901
Professor of Law, Columbia Law School f: 212-580-0898 moglen@
Founding Director, Software Freedom Law Centercolumbia.edu
1995
Whatever the truth of the adage may be, the point for us is that none
of this has anything to do with licensing. Fred Trotter was actually
asking a question, to which the correct answer is: You don't need a
license to make something free software at a certain date in the
future. Giving a copy to
On Tuesday, 24 February 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If a company sues for infringement on the basis of a patent
being included in XY, where XY consists of X (non-infringing) and
Y (infringing), then that will be brought up by the defense and
the company will have to claim Y
--
Eben Moglen voice: 212-854-8382
Professor of Lawfax: 212-854-7946 moglen@
Columbia Law School, 435 West 116th Street, NYC 10027 columbia.edu
General Counsel, Free Software Foundation http://moglen.law.columbia.edu
--
license-discuss
Larry,
Yes but no.
Let's begin, before disagreeing, by agreeing. I haven't said that the
measure represented by GPL 7 is enough; that's not a conclusion I am
yet prepared to draw. Deciding how and to what extent to invoke other
forms of defense against patent assertions is very important in
to all,
Eben
--
Eben Moglen voice: 212-854-8382
Professor of Lawfax: 212-854-7946 moglen@
Columbia Law School, 435 West 116th Street, NYC 10027 columbia.edu
General Counsel, Free Software Foundation http://moglen.law.columbia.edu
--
license
On Thursday, 20 March 2003, John Cowan wrote:
Eben Moglen scripsit:
The license is more
robust than that, and indeed--for reasons I've described elsewhere--
section 7 can actually provide important mutual defense against
assertions of supposed patent rights, but it can only do so
On Friday, 14 March 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
on this list to chime in:
Nahhh. None of this is necessary.
We are helping a third party to incorporate our proposed solution to
the ASP problem in its own modified GPL for release very shortly
(probably within days). Legal work is complete and only some
public information documents are not yet final. Use in an
FSF-approved third-party license will be
16 matches
Mail list logo
