On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:31:25AM -0700, Duncan Laurie wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:31 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That occurance of licensed doesn't refer to the copyright license.
It refers to DOE licensing of technology for operating nuclear
facilities. It's perfectly Free.
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
of endeavor part of the DFSG).
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 11:49:45PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're right that this could be more clearly phrased, and I think
talking to Sun about that can only be helpful. But I don't think
javacc is non-free in the meantime.
I have no problem with this summary, as long as Sun acts
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 09:49 +0200, Kaare Hviid wrote:
If the Sun legal department can't be convinced of dropping licensed,
could they by any chance be convinced of rewriting it as licensed by
the U.S. Department of Energy? That should make the context clear,
also considering that Sun at
Package: javacc
Version: 3.2+0-1
Severity: wishlist
I'm not a Debian developer, I'm not in any way a legal expert, nor am I
on the debian-legal list, but I found this odd, and a clarification
might be due.
The javacc (3.2+0-1 from main of sid) LICENSE reads:
You acknowledge that this
Kaare Hviid wrote:
Package: javacc
Version: 3.2+0-1
Severity: wishlist
I'm not a Debian developer, I'm not in any way a legal expert, nor am I
on the debian-legal list, but I found this odd, and a clarification
might be due.
The javacc (3.2+0-1 from main of sid) LICENSE reads:
You
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:29 +0200, Kaare Hviid wrote:
Package: javacc
Version: 3.2+0-1
Severity: wishlist
I'm not a Debian developer, I'm not in any way a legal expert, nor am I
on the debian-legal list, but I found this odd, and a clarification
might be due.
The javacc (3.2+0-1 from
That occurance of licensed doesn't refer to the copyright license.
It refers to DOE licensing of technology for operating nuclear
facilities. It's perfectly Free.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:31 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That occurance of licensed doesn't refer to the copyright license.
It refers to DOE licensing of technology for operating nuclear
facilities. It's perfectly Free.
Indeed that probably explains why it was put in to begin with, but
This may be a side issue, but could someone explain to me how you
acknowledge that can fit the DFSG no matter what is acknowledged?
It sounds like the equivalent of if you distribute this software, you must
pet a cat, only instead of petting a cat, you have to make an
acknowledgement.
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This may be a side issue, but could someone explain to me how you
acknowledge that can fit the DFSG no matter what is acknowledged?
It sounds like the equivalent of if you distribute this software, you must
pet a cat, only instead of petting a cat,
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This may be a side issue, but could someone explain to me how you
acknowledge that can fit the DFSG no matter what is acknowledged?
Trivially free examples are easy: You acknowledge that this software
is licensed under the General Public License
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know that you must acknowledge that doesn't mean you need to mail Sun a
written statement bearing an acknowledgement, but I don't think that makes a
difference. Would a license you must acknowledge that Jesus is Lord be
free?
I would guess not, because it
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider this hypothetical: I want to use the software in a nuclear power
plant. My lawyers advise me not to make the acknowledgement, because doing
so might make it harder to later take Sun to court if I have to. I refuse
to acknowledge that the
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Or a license you must acknowledge that any damage you might suffer as a
result of using this software is no greater than 99 cents?
That sounds like a weaker version of the warranty disclaimer in the GPL.
I don't think so. The GPL's warranty
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider this hypothetical: I want to use the software in a nuclear power
plant. My lawyers advise me not to make the acknowledgement, because doing
so might make it harder to later take Sun to court if I have
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If not, why is
you must acknowledge something that might put you at a disadvantage in
court free?
Presumably because acknowledging the truth of something that is true
is no burden.
If acknowledging the truth was no burden, then that clause
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or a license you must acknowledge that any damage you might suffer as a
result of using this software is no greater than 99 cents?
That sounds like a weaker version of the warranty disclaimer in the GPL.
No, it's much stronger. The GPL
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Your lawyers are insane.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cite?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're considering using unproven, uncertified software running in a
JVM to
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Your lawyers are insane.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cite?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're considering using unproven,
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:55:55PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're considering using unproven, uncertified software running in a
JVM to operate an unlicensed nuclear power plant, ...
False.
Either [a] the software is first being certified (possibly being modified
in the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
of endeavor part of the DFSG).
No, it isn't. It doesn't say you can't do so -- just that you've
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
of endeavor part of the DFSG).
No, it isn't. It doesn't say you
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
of endeavor part of the DFSG).
No, it isn't. It doesn't say you
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:52:30PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The Department of Energy licenses nuclear power facilities in the
USA, and licenses equipment and software for use there. That license
is what this is talking about.
And it should be explicit that that is what it is talking
You're right that this could be more clearly phrased, and I think
talking to Sun about that can only be helpful. But I don't think
javacc is non-free in the meantime.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
26 matches
Mail list logo
