Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-09-13 03:39:39 +0100 Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer
exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the date
You commence an action,
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 12:01:15AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit
claiming copyright infringement on the work or any derivative forfeits
all right to the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:18:08AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:30:55PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
Are there any other examples of restrictions placed on open-source licenses
that Debian has had to deal with in the past?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:33:59PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't think many people are seriously advocating that the DFSG only
applies to restrictions made under copyright law.
In that thread, several people suggested that a restriction such as You
may not use this logo, or any
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:40:53PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-08 16:26]:
I want to know if i can use the trademark Debian on the name of a
project that i've started , Debian Hardened which i want to see as
an official Debian
[ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ]
Hi!
Thanks, for your response:
Is there some other as free as public domain license? I don't like
to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\
I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially
says the same
On 2004-09-15 04:14:40 +0100 Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Does that really matter, if the condition for termination is
acceptable?
If the patent license is terminated, the only reason to care whether
the copyright license terminates as well is if you intend to ignore
the
lack of a
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:06:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
The first is the case where you were licensed no patents to use the
software. Hopefully this will be the most common case, as free
software developers reject software patents. If only the patent
licence terminates, including the
[I think we may be saying the same thing here, but I thought some
clarification was necessary.]
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You can never take someone else's work, place restrictions on it and
sell it.
You can if the license allows it.
if a work is in the public domain, nobody
O Martes, 14 de Setembro de 2004 ás 22:18:46 +0200, Isaac Clerencia escribía:
I think this can be illegal (also team names?).
Yes, it falls under trade mark protection laws. Since team names and logos,
and players' names are big assets for their teams and national leagues (put
Beckam's name in
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 11:56, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
O Martes, 14 de Setembro de 2004 ás 22:18:46 +0200, Isaac Clerencia
escribía:
I'd remove the names (i.e. change them to other, innocuous names) even
without asking as I know the answer beforehand.
I've uploaded a new package without
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:42:45PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If a software discriminates against people wanting to sell or even
only those selling free software as binary-only, it is also non-free.
If by discriminates against you mean prevents distribution by,
then you are correct.
If by
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 12:01:15AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit
claiming copyright infringement on the work or any
* Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
You can take MIT-licensed software and sell it to people without providing
source, and you
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This isn't claiming that the works of Alice or Bob are infringing
copyright; it's claiming that Charlie is infringing copyright.
Neither Alice nor Bob face license termination for each other's
work for suing Charlie
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
An elementary point of Free Software is to protect the rights of the
users, not excluding bad ones. (Or will GPL3 have a section
termination the licence if you breach any FSF copyright?)
forfeits the right to distribute the code at all, which
Last month, Mark Hymers wrote:
I'm currently working on packaging IFRIT (a piece of data visualization
software which uses VTK and QT). I've been auditing all of the source
files to check their licenses before I finish off the packaging and
apart from a couple of small issues (small files not
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But that's where patents differ from copyright -- they have no concept
of derivative works, only of protected methods. So if you sue
claiming that the implementation in Charlie's is bad, you're also
claiming the
On Wed, 15, Sep, 2004 at 03:23:39PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke thus..
upstream claims to be releasing it under the GPL or the QPL, but
with a blatantly GPL-incompatible proviso against generating any
income with the software:
IFRIT is distributed under the terms of GNU Public License
On Wed, 15, Sep, 2004 at 09:54:24PM +0100, Mark Hymers spoke thus..
I'll take this up with upstream immediately and report back to
debian-legal. Thanks for spotting this.
Upstream has (very promptly, I must say) removed the clause from the
website. Hope that solves all the problems with the
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:00:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
Long-standing conclusions, summarised:
Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for
any reason other
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:00:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
Long-standing conclusions, summarised:
Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or
whatever else might interfere with
On 2004-09-14 23:38:26 +0100 Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray writes:
The OSI lists no licences as free.
While pedantically true, I claim this is irrelevant on the basis of
the similarity between the Open Source Definition and the DFSG. The
only significant difference is that
Harald Geyer wrote:
there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License:
* It is an enumerate style license, which means that
- you might forget something
- it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying
you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what
Hi,
El mié, 15-09-2004 a las 09:35, Sven Luther escribió:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:40:53PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-08 16:26]:
I want to know if i can use the trademark Debian on the name of a
project that i've started
* Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040915 15:00]:
On the other hand, I always thought free software was about protecting
users, not patent litigants who are supposed to already have working
forms of the patented invention.
cynism
What about people selling non-free software, builders of nuclear
* Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040915 17:12]:
(Your choice whether that describes you or an item you omitted. If
you want to make a serious attempt to apply DFSG #5 or #6 to patent
termination, I'm listening, but please craft your argument so that it
does not classify the GPL as non-free
Bernhard R. Link writes:
* Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040915 17:12]:
(Your choice whether that describes you or an item you omitted. If
you want to make a serious attempt to apply DFSG #5 or #6 to patent
termination, I'm listening, but please craft your argument so that it
does
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An elementary point of Free Software is to protect the rights of the
users, not excluding bad ones. (Or will GPL3 have a section
termination the licence if you breach any FSF copyright?)
RMS is quoted as saying Misusing a GPL-covered program
Harald Geyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
You can take MIT-licensed software and sell it to
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:32:27AM +0200, Harald Geyer wrote:
[ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ]
Please set your Mail-Followup-To mail header.
* Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:59:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:53:55PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This whole consensus nonsense is just an excuse to discard any
argument without responding to it. Note how it is only ever advanced
by people who want to discard
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:14:40PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Furthermore, if you *sue claiming that the work infringes your patent*,
I see absolutely no reason why you should have any rights to the work,
since you are trying to eliminate the rights of others to the work. I
can understand
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:20:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's clear
that the OSI has made a good and, in my opinion, successful effort to
clean
it up. It's neither fair nor correct to say that nothing has changed.
It's
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
No, you did that when you invented it and filed for a patent. It's
*already* your own proprietary software, and you're going to the
courts to get that enforced.
Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some
software under a copyleft, with a
35 matches
Mail list logo
