On 2/14/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
First of all, the GPL clearly qualifies for the
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:03:17AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND
is also wrong for anything which is not from the PHP Team.
Agreed; this license is still not
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, it's possible, the section just ends up as unreadable garbage.
Nothing in the GFDL requires that the invariant sections be
readable.
So, under GFDL, I'm allowed to compress the invariant sections with an
algorithm that is not uncompressable on the
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
I mean the GPL license.
Also, please have a look at 81 § 3.
I did it.
Now you please take a look at
clip
Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic:
Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming
in European Competition Law Review 3/2006
http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf
Greets,
Ville Oksanen
Researcher, Helsinki University of
Hi,
I hope that this might be something useful for the people here. We (as
in HUT/SoberIT/COSS)are currently developing a tool for checking the
license information inside FOSS-packages. The idea is to make it simple
to get a quick understanding what kind licenses are used. In addition,
the
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:28:22AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
I mean the GPL license.
The GPL is a text, not an undertaking you
On 2/15/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:28:22AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project, with whom are they
entering onto agreement? Mmmmh?
I mean the GPL
On 2/14/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I suppose that fontana belongs to Moglen's underling at SFLC Richard
Fontana.
An interesting article about Eben Moglen:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108
Meet the DotCommunist
regards,
alexander.
On 2/15/06, Ville Oksanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
clip
Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic:
Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming
in European Competition Law Review 3/2006
http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf
On 2/15/06, Ville Oksanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
clip
Dr. Mikko Välimäki has a quite nice article on the topic:
Mikko Välimäki: Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law, forthcoming
in European Competition Law Review 3/2006
http://www.valimaki.com/org/open_source_competition.pdf
Thanks.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
First off, hello.
Hello Yorick.
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
Germany (which part of the EU)
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 03:23:33PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/15/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:28:22AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Assuming you mean the FSF and/or GNU project,
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
First off, hello.
Hello Yorick.
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html?
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:36:55PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
First off, hello.
Hello Yorick.
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
Frank Küster wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
First off, hello.
Hello Yorick.
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
On 2/15/06, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
First off, hello.
Hello Yorick.
What is your educated opinion regarding the GPL being in trouble re
Germany hasn't done anything, at least nothing is described in this
article. A particular german court has spoken.
Yes a court has spoken and has made an injonction to follow the GPL.
German courts follow German law... Germany cannot declare the GPL in
any other way.
Olive
--
To
More serious and higher ranked folks have also spoken. Like Appellate
Judge (and etc.) Hoeren.
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf
I am not a lawyer and I cannot comment on every objection. But there are
arguments that obviously seeems flawed and I am very
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 01:52:53PM -0500
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0500
But the question of whether this is a use restriction or a
modification restriction is an interesting one. I
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether
something is free or not; a hint, nothing more, but not irrelevant either.
It's something that can be sacrificed, to a certain degree: the GPL is
pretty
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether
something is free or not; a hint, nothing more, but not irrelevant either.
It's something
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 03:18:43PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether
something is free or not; a
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 01:52:53PM -0500
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote who=Jeremy Hankins date=Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0500
But the question of whether this is a use restriction or a
On 2/15/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Are you really educated in (some) law?
Check for yourself.
http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005395/
Sorry it's in french (the website has just been revamped), but I guess
you'll get the gist of it. A hint:
On 2/15/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
It is reproached that a German court apply German law (?!?). A Germanian
bring a lawsuit in Germany for infrigment of a license he have choosen.
It is obvious that German laws will apply.
It's far from obvious unless the license specifies that
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:03:17AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:33:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS''
AND is also wrong for anything which
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:06:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:19:10 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Moreover, while revising the license, I rediscovered another problem
that has been neglected in recent discussions:
| 3. The name PHP must not be used to endorse or
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:16:54PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
| 3. The name PHP must not be used to endorse or promote products
| derived from this software without prior written permission. For
| written permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The usual no-endorsement clause that
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:13:59PM +0400, olive wrote:
To answer, Patrick remark; a search in this list will show you that I
have considerably discussed and defended my opinion even if I do not
agree with most of the posters.
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's
On 16/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree. Any
opinion in contradiction with yours will be poorly defended.
Let's not. Let's say that you are wrong, or at least, that your
assertions are poorly defended. You're trying to
31 matches
Mail list logo
