Hi,
Am Montag, 4. Juni 2007 02:45:07 schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:09:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case
brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your
Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
I am not a specialist, but in France, private use of a work cannot be
denied (as well as private copy, in some measure). Whether this applies
only to countries following author rights doctrine instead of
copyrights, I let it to someone more knowledgeable in this
Thomas Weber wrote:
No idea how it is called in Belgium, but it's the German part of a treaty
from
1958 dealing precisely with that sort of thing. So, it seems extremely likely
that if I win in Germany in a civil case, I can have this decision executed
in Belgium. Additionally, you might
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
You're required to give up something you might value and otherwise
demand compensation for, certainly, but there needs to be something
more
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
(mostly) notwithstanding.
From the summary:
If the parties, one or more
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
(mostly) notwithstanding.
From the summary:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 09:33:12PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
I'm in the UK, and if I wasn't but the choice of venue specified
England and Wales, I'd probably have a very nice holiday at the
copyright holder's expense :-)
Look at SCOG and how they got dealt with in Germany ...
What
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:40:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
You're *not* giving up the right not to distribute any source, because
you can always refrain from distributing the corresponding binaries and
have no obligation to provide source.
You're *not* giving up the right to
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check.
Anthony Towns writes:
[...] And as far as the actual effects go,
I'm not sure you're going to be any better off without that clause in
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:25:41AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Non-developer, non-maintainer, non-applicant: Check.
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a choice of venue clause though, it only stops some people from
being willing to participate; just as potentially giving up patent
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:14:16AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
But even so, when you say things like I'm personally more concerned
about licensing than the average developer and I [...] expect
people who disagree with my analysis to actually engage the analysis
with counter arguments, come
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue
about jurisdiction is equivalent to you must pet a cat, then, IMO,
you need to argue the same thing about you don't get to exercise your
patent rights.
You're aware
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:44AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is a freedom that I have by default; if I accept the CDDL I no longer
have that freedom[1]. [...]
[1] Technically, not the right to choose a venue, but the right to not be
sued in a venue where I have no legal presence.
Err,
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:42:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue
about jurisdiction is equivalent to you must pet a cat, then, IMO,
you need to argue the same thing
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:30:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Obviously (I hope), I don't consider you to be inexperienced in free
software development, [...]
To expand on that a bit more: IMHO, Debian is fundamentally about what its
contributors want -- we're focussed on doing right by our
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:01:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:42:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you're claiming you don't get to exercise your right to argue
about jurisdiction is equivalent
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:07:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition
of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and open
source community, that Debian can use to work out what software we'll
distribute
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're going to ignore the court case, it doesn't matter to you,
but if you ever plan on travelling to germany or doing business with
people in germany (or live in some part of germany that isn't close
enough to berlin to defend yourself there) it can
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The debian-legal checklist:
[...]
In the example Don presented, of the Debian star maintainer removing
some output from the Debian star package, that the star upstream claims
constitutes a copyright notice, then there are the following options:
[ rather
The troll checklist:
Anthony Towns writes:
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant: Check.
Ad hominem attack: Check. (For what it's worth, I am an upstream
maintainer of one package in
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:27:13AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The troll checklist:
Heh. Free advice: the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them.
Anthony Towns writes:
The debian-legal checklist:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Posted by a non-DD,
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, the license of the sequencing software you used is completely
irrelevant. You USE a toolchain when you create with it, you don't
DERIVE from it (the exception being things like libraries -- or
soundfonts -- that get incorporated into the resulting
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, the license of the sequencing software you used is completely
irrelevant. You USE a toolchain when you create with it, you don't
DERIVE from it (the exception being things like
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:30:36 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
And I mean, I know what a GR is for, why are you telling me? It's
still not a *good solution* for deciding these things; it's a last
resort, and the only other options we currently have a ftpmaster
decides and it's obvious to pretty
Anthony Towns writes:
Uh, dude, IANAL is a way of indicating that you may not actually have
a clue what you're talking about because it's all just amateur opinions.
Once upon a time -legal used to be littered with it; now days the concept
that regular posters to -legal might be mistaken seems
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:53:11 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
To expand on that a bit more: IMHO, Debian is fundamentally about what
its contributors want -- we're focussed on doing right by our users
and the free software community, but ultimately, as far as Debian's
concerned, the first and
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:01:24 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition
of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and
open source community, that Debian can use to work out what software
we'll distribute in
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users.
the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that
users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not
meet
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need
or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG,
so the documentation was made available in non-free.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:05:58PM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, the license of the sequencing software you used is completely
Le lundi 04 juin 2007 à 23:08 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call
it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whatever) where our policy with regard to
individual software's licenes could be discussed with the input of those
who actually set this
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 03:41:29PM -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
Although I would agree with that, the main matter here is not whether
this WAV file would be appropriate for main or contrib, but whether it
is distributable at all, since the GPLv2 requires complete source code,
which
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See, given that as an ftpmaster I'm one of the folks who actually
implements the policy on what's accepted into main or not, it's not my
loss at all.
I think that Debian would very much benefit if there was a place (call
it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or whatever)
34 matches
Mail list logo
