On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 06:49:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 08:51:52AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If I illegally acquire the program, I don't have usage rights, AIUI.
Under traditional U.S. copyright law
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:34:09PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Sure. EULA is marketdrone speak for a license permitting actions
involving a copyrighted work.
I disagree. I think EULA is marketdrone speak for a device to impose
provisions of civil contract upon a work that is also
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 08:51:52AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If I illegally acquire the program, I don't have usage rights, AIUI.
Under traditional U.S. copyright law (the DMCA notwithstanding), there
is no such think as illegal acquisition. Just tortious or illegal
distribution.
For
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:51:34PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
This is very different from EULAs because with them the end user gets
*less* rights that normally given by copyright
The rights normally given by
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:04:29PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
It looks to me like a possible case of being free but not
distributable by Debian: because anyone distributing it would have to
make people agree to the EULA, which would mean you couldn't just put
it on an ftp server or
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty.
Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software.
The main problem is that that's simply not true - you _can_
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:20:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Ah. I see your confusion now. You really can't legally use the
software without accepting the license, but the GPL imposes no
conditions upon your acceptance of paragraph 0 which grants you usage
rights. You could call this
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
This is very different from EULAs because with them the end user gets
*less* rights that normally given by copyright
The rights normally given by copyright are virtually nil; you
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-12-04 10:46]:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:21:29AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
I suspect (though I could be wrong) that the the problem is that if it's
an EULA, in that the user must agree to it before using the software
in question, we have to force
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if they put users through a click-wrap license, but don't require it
on redistribution, there seems to be no point.
I have trouble figuring out clause 2 in the APSL, specifically point
2.2.c.
(I've seen some slightly confused Windows installers for
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Besides that there are countries like Austria where click-through
licenses are not legally binding.
It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
program that asks you
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-12-04 11:40]:
It's not clear to me whether you're talking about a web page that asks
you to agree to some terms before downloading the software, or a
program that asks you to agree to some terms before continuing.
The former looks like it might
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:11:25AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
Anyone willing to clear things up?
Sure. EULA is marketdrone speak for a license permitting actions
involving a copyrighted work. It's the content of those licenses that
matters. Any association you may have between the term
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:11:25AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
Anyone willing to clear things up?
Sure. EULA is marketdrone speak for a license permitting actions
involving a copyrighted work. It's the content of those licenses that
I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
software ...
Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
the software to drive a publicly accessible web server. This condition
would still be DFSG-free, I think, but you can't enforce it with a
pure
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
software ...
I tried very hard last time this issue came up and failed to find any
where the software would still be considered free and the EULA had
any effect at all.
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Suppose you want to force people to publish the source when they use
the software to drive a publicly accessible web server.
I think it would be unfree, and probably even undistributable by Debian in
non-free (we're not going to require an EULA to receive a
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:34PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I'm trying to think of a vaguely plausible use for an EULA with free
software ...
I tried very hard last time this issue came up and failed to find any
where the software would
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty.
Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software.
The main problem is that that's simply not true - you _can_ use the
software without accepting the license[1].
If you want to copy or
I started thinking on the Apple license again. Unlike the GPL, which
is a copyright license, it appears to be an end user license agreement
which you have to agree with prior to downloading the code or
something like that.
As far as I can see, this has the potiential for violating FSF
freedom
On 04 Dec 2002 03:11:25 +0100
Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started thinking on the Apple license again. Unlike the GPL, which
is a copyright license, it appears to be an end user license agreement
which you have to agree with prior to downloading the code or
something like
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:21:29AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
I suspect (though I could be wrong) that the the problem is that if it's
an EULA, in that the user must agree to it before using the software
in question, we have to force them to agree to it before using it. We
can't guarantee
22 matches
Mail list logo
