Please let me know what you think.
- Forwarded message from Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:50:19 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Analog licence violates DFSG
Reply-To: [EMAIL
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Please let me know what you think.
- Forwarded message from Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
The Analog licence states:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by
this licence. Any such
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by
this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
committing the action.
This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of
the DFSG which
David Starner wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Please let me know what you think.
- Forwarded message from Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
The Analog licence states:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden
by
this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
committing the action.
This provision of the licence blatently violates
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:16:08AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
forbidden by
this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
committing
Hi!
Thanks for your help.
The font-issue will be resolved soon. And it seems to be possible
that the license will be changed after this is done. I hope
it will then be possible for Squeak to be real Free Software
In the meantime Squeak has to be part of non-free.
thanks again,
I'd be interested to know what this means:
7. This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in
all respects by the law of the State of Virginia, excluding
conflict of law provisions.
If someone in Albania, say, is violating the licence, and CNRI wants
to sue them in
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
Please let me know what you think.
- Forwarded message from Dave Cinege [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by
this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However, if your printing server component is a library and is GPLed,
then every work linked to it has to be GPLed (or have an even less
restrictive license).
Also, is it relevant that at the moment the whole app. comes on a single CD?
This is
Scripsit Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole
responsibility of the person committing the action.
This provision of the licence
Scripsit Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We've had arguments over export regulations, and the general consensus
is that they aren't DFSG free, so this isn't either.
I don't follow. This is not an export restriction.
No, but the problem with export restriction clauses is not that they
concern
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility
of the person committing the action.
Hmm.. and what about actions which are illegal even though the
begin Bernhard R. Link quotation of Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:34:05AM +0200:
First of all I see this as a moot point, as an illigal action is
illegal. By saying that you behave illegal, when you do something illegal
is no discrimination in my eyes but should be seen as only
beeing a reiminder.
On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is not. Consider this scenario:
the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even
though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he
broke originally.
I think this scenario leads to an very gray area. Where does
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Don Marti wrote:
First of all, crime, especially organized crime, is a Field of
Endeavor. Second, some people who are considered criminals in one
country are freedom fighters in another country.
I do not think that theese are so valid points.
Third, [..]
Not even
Scripsit Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is not. Consider this scenario:
the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even
though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he
broke originally.
I think this
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 06:14:59PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Don Marti wrote:
First of all, crime, especially organized crime, is a Field of
Endeavor. Second, some people who are considered criminals in one
country are freedom fighters in another country.
I do
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 06:11:15PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
I think this scenario leads to an very gray area. Where does
the author want to sue him? As I understand law, A broke only
the copyright laws of his evil country. (As you said before:
International agreements are not law but are
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
Please let me know what you think.
I think we have had this debate before :}
I don't remember what the final result was, but most agreed that it is
silly to place restrictions on a license agreement that are already
implied by local law, as they are really
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote:
The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard.
Not really, it's way too broad for that. If it were completely objective
there'd be no debate about whether a given license violated it or not.
Anyway, if this is acceptable, then can someone put in a
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:07:22PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote:
The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard.
Not really, it's way too broad for that. If it were completely objective
there'd be no debate about whether a given license
This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a keep it
legal clause make it non DFSG free? Contracts (licensing
agreements) may not cover illegal actions: a contract to perform an arson
is null and void regardless of the wording of the contract. So logically,
a contract that has a keep
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:10:52PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a keep it
legal clause make it non DFSG free?
Keep it legal is not the clause being discussed. Instead, it's
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
IMHO the problems with legality clauses in contracts can be summarized in
several points:
(Disclaimer - this isn't legal advice, get yer own durn lawyer, yadda yadda
yadda. See below.)
1. Not all countries adhere to the common law (mostly just the UK its
former colonies, like US, Canada,
By my argument, it's redundant, not meaningless. The action which is
illegal voids the contract, both in common law and explicitly by this
particular contract clause. Basically, it all boils down to: where this
contract fails, ALL contracts fail, and if this is not the case, the
contract is
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole
responsibility of the person committing the action.
I jaywalked yesterday in CA, so did I now break the licence agreement? I
jaywalked
27 matches
Mail list logo
