On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
In that case, would you consider the clause Free if it said when
the author of such alterations submits them for inclusion in the
work? That would make such assignment entirely voluntary.
Possibly. I'm not entirely enthused about clauses like this
Jim Bounce
President
Millionaire Corporation
702-948-8522 office
702-948-8523 fax
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Jim Marhaus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
snip
| With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen
| of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the
| United States of America, any litigation relating to this License
|
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Josh Triplett:
Agreed. In the text could imply right next to where you differ from
the standard, which would probably be unreasonable enough to be
non-free. Without the in the text, modifiers could simply add a
blanket notice somewhere in the distributed work
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it still non-free even though you are not required to submit patches
to them for inclusion? If you opted to never send patches upstream, the
condition would not affect you at all. Note that simply distributing
the patches could not be considered as
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also, could someone explain how this sort of condition would work in
practice? Suppose I'm the licensee. The licensor would go to court in
Santa Clara County and say what, exactly? I haven't signed anything,
so how would the licensor convince the court
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:20:54PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
If the court is willing to take the licensor's word for
it, then couldn't the licensor sue me in Santa Clara even if I had
never had anything to do with the software?
Yes, but you could then tell them and the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it still non-free even though you are not required to submit patches
to them for inclusion? If you opted to never send patches upstream, the
condition would not affect you at all. Note that simply distributing
the
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:20:54PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, but you could then tell them and the court that they had to move the
suit to where you lived. With this clause, you couldn't (unless the clause
was ruled to be unenforcable).
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, but you could then tell them and the court that they had to move the
suit to where you lived. With this clause, you couldn't (unless the
clause
was ruled to be unenforcable).
This is circular. A court has to decide from the facts of the
Jim Marhaus said on Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +,:
1. Firebird Database
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/firebird/firebird_1.0.2-2.1/copyright
Something wrong here??
I do a apt-cache show firebird-c64-server here, and get this :-
quote (with several snips)
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around
half-formed in my head for a little while now, regarding Free licences. I
don't know if it's been raised before, but I think it bears discussion:
A licence
* Michael Poole:
Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution
under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions?
I could send you a copy of RT3 without the offending paragraph. Would
this make you somewhat more comfortable with RT's license?
--
Current mail filters:
Florian Weimer writes:
* Michael Poole:
Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution
under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions?
I could send you a copy of RT3 without the offending paragraph. Would
this make you somewhat more comfortable with RT's license?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid that is a revisionist interpretation. First, Mozilla is
certainly intended to be Open Source, which is essentially the same
as
what Debian means by free:
The jury seems out on that. They could mean *anything* by Open
Source.
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would imagine that the plaintiff would argue in their local court that the
clause was enforceable, and the defendant would argue in their local court
that it wasn't. If both won in their respective juristictions, you would
appeal the decisions to a
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know much about the US legal system. How different is this
from the ordinary default situation? If I were a citizen of, or an
entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of
America would I normally be able to safely
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see
that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public
licence quite a lot of legal work has to be done in order to show that
the licence has anything to do with the
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Jim Marhaus said on Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +,:
1. Firebird Database
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/f/firebird/firebird_1.0.2-2.1/copyright
Something wrong here??
I do a apt-cache show firebird-c64-server here, and get this :-
quote
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:48:23PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know much about the US legal system. How different is this
from the ordinary default situation? If I were a citizen of, or an
entity chartered or registered to do business in the
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:48:23PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
I am wondering this as well. It might actually be legally *preferable*
to have a license where choice of venue is specified, because otherwise
one needs to be prepared to face suits in all
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see
that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public
licence quite a lot of legal work has to be done in order to show that
You think it's beneficial. Reasonable people might disagree. Thus,
while you might accept such a contract, it's not a free license. It
is always beneficial to receive software under a free license.
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25 matches
Mail list logo
