* Brian Thomas Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040612 04:55]:
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see
that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public
licence
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040613 13:16]:
Well, it really depends on the legal system you are in. What you told
seems to be true for the US. However, for example in Germany (and in
the other countries using Roman Right) of course the GPL and the MPL
are contracts. No doubt about that.
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
This is a technical issue related to ease of bootstrapping on a new
architecture, and not a legal issue.
As a technical measure, the circular dependency could be broken and
the alternative prebuild-world-in-source kludge eliminated by writing
an Oaklisp interpreter in
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 04:17:29PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
It may not be a legal issue, but I think it is more than merely
technical. It does touch the freeness question.
It is about trust that the source provided is actually the true and full
source for the given binary. This is not
Mahesh wrote:
Something wrong here??
I do a apt-cache show firebird-c64-server here, and get this :-
[snip]
enhancing a multi-platform relational database management system based
on the source code released by Inprise Corp (now known as Borland
Software Corp) under the InterBase
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:51:39 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
One other issue: does and the nroff source is included mean that
if I want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to
either print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk?
This seems onerous for physical
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:53:18 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
One other issue: does and the nroff source is included mean that
if I want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to
either print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk?
This seems onerous for physical
Edmund wrote:
Hasn't this been rebutted by people pointing out that many or most
free software licences don't include any patent licence at all, so
including a restricted patent licence is hardly any worse?
The FSF claims free licenses like the GPL carry an implied patent license. This
is in
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040613 13:16]:
Not true at all. The GPL, for example, is not a valid contract.
Neither is the MIT/X11 license.
Please abstract from your own legal system. In some legal systems, the
GPL or the MIT/X11 license is a contract, in
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Almost all free licenses are not contracts. I cannot think of any
Free license which *is* a contract, but there might, I suppose, be one
out there. Given American law requires an exchange, I can't see how.
What do you mean? In order to gain the licenses
[Sorry about the long lines in my earlier post,
thanks for wrapping them, Raul.]
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 04:17:29PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
To understand what I mean, you may want to read Ken Thompson's old
article[0] on how to hide a Trojan Horse in a compiler
11 matches
Mail list logo
