On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:45:10PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
Companies like Apple and General Electric would be disappointed to hear
that. I think you meant that dictionary words can't be trademarked where
those words are clearly descriptive of the goods and services in association
with
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the dissident test would only be an issue in jurisdictions with
hostile governments.
Which happens to be all jurisdictions. Some of them don't shoot you,
just fine you or put you in jail (e.g. DMCA). But every
We offer many .mor tga ge .l o
an programs and services!
* 0 % Down .Pu rc hase Programs
* R a te/Term .R ef i
n ances
* Bad .c r e dit!
* D e bt .co n so l idation
* 1st Time .H ome buyer Programs (Stop .P a
ying Rent!!)
* .C as h 0ut 1st & 2nds
Go NOW!
eixikvj eslgjhqk gcjilkxr
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
In the case of forced distribution of code back upstream, it results
in a wider range of people being able to take advantages of your
modifications.
So would a license that required you to redistribute any
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:24:12AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because, to me, freedom is defined by the ability to do things. It being
difficult to do that thing does not restrict my freedom, it merely makes
it harder to assert it. I still have it.
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I
think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much
more clear than it is now.
I think it derives directly
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:45:10PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
Companies like Apple and General Electric would be disappointed to hear
that. I think you meant that dictionary words can't be trademarked where
those words are clearly descriptive of the goods and services
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:40:04AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:45:10PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
Companies like Apple and General Electric would be disappointed to hear
that. I think you meant that dictionary words can't be trademarked
So if the developer is just doing it for himself, then the clause
doesn't apply.
Let's go through this again:-
`These items, when distributed, are subject ..'
^
So if I give a copy to my wife for review, that triggers this.
If the
Yes, you can. Whether the package should be removed or not, that's for the
ftp-masters to decide. That such kinds of bug reports could be done in a
nicer way, well, that's probably true, but still...
Well, i have the impression that there is a false claim. I have been reading
this thread, and
I wouldn't consider a license free if it said, for example, if you modify
this program you must add your name to this wiki page as soon as possible.
It wouldn't fail the desert island test (as soon as possible might easily
mean never) but it would fail the dissident test.
But the QPL also fails
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
requirement than the Add your name to a wiki license.
It has an archive all distributed copies
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
General Electric is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
(IBM Works does not infringe Microsoft Works). Apple's probably
lawyer-bait.
The important issue with trademarks is whether or not the word or phrase
has some
It represents the right to make private modifications. I should be able to
change a program, send it to a friend, and agree with him not to further
distribute it, without being forced to send it to a third party.
Well, as long as you don't brag about it, there is nothing in the QPL 6c which
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I
think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much
more clear
The opinions of debian-legal consist of the opinions of all those
developers and non-developers who participate on this list. This is not
a closed list. If the opinions of some developers diverge from the
opinions on debian-legal, then those developers should start
participating on debian-legal
Er, this quote from Brian seems to have turned the dissident test on its
head. It's not about protecting dissidents from copyright infringement
claims at all, it's about protecting them from being *drawn and quartered*
by their government as a byproduct of complying with the license. The
problem
Actually it's just a trivial tautology:
The people who participate on -legal are the ones who care about this
stuff.
Not. By that you infere that anyone not participating doesn't care, which is
obviously false. May it occur to you that not everyone involved in the debian
project has the time to
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Making freedom harder to assert is restricting freedom.
The GPL makes it harder to assert freedom because you need to spend more
time investigating subtle license interactions.
Easily shown to be false -- if you accept patch clauses as Free, then
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:27:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello debian-legal.
I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the
QPL is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a
solution to it when time
#index top up prev next
___
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
First, thanks for not CCing me on this, as i asked.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, one of the clauses you have problems with, the court of venue,
if waived, might limit their possibilities to defend against people not
respecting the licence
That is the whole problem with the venue
Sven Luther wrote:
6c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
So, if you make a release that is not general, but limited to a small
group of people, then the
Now really CCing debian-legal :/
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:39PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Hi,
I'm back from vacation and I've just read the debian-legal archive
where there seem to be a concensus about QPL being not DFSG-compliant.
I didn't see any
[CCd: I remember Sven saying he is not a -legal reader]
On 2004-07-17 02:40:54 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
libraries which is linked with the code is LGPL, which is QPL
compatible, plus some exception that RMS suggested us. I participated
to
that discussion back then, and see
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if the developer is just doing it for himself, then the clause
doesn't apply.
Let's go through this again:-
`These items, when distributed, are subject ..'
^
So if I give a copy to my wife for review, that
On 2004-07-19 16:33:34 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) point 6c of the QPL fails the chinese dissident or desert
island tests.
Apart from the the dubious justification of those tests (i would
much have
prefered particular DFSG points), i believe that the licence sets
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wouldn't consider a license free if it said, for example, if you modify
this program you must add your name to this wiki page as soon as possible.
It wouldn't fail the desert island test (as soon as possible might easily
mean never) but it would fail the dissident
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
requirement than the Add your name to a wiki license.
It has an
On 2004-07-19 11:38:23 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] There's no consistent and coherent argument going on,
other than a sort of fuzzy We think it's not free, and we can sort of
point at these two things and handwave and say they cover them. And,
frankly, that's not
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the
QPL are in the form of licenses to the initial author and distribution
to him, not promises to obey the license.
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 15:51, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL makes it harder to assert freedom because you need to spend more
time investigating subtle license interactions.
Easily shown to be false -- if you accept patch clauses as Free, then
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:50:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[CCd: I remember Sven saying he is not a -legal reader]
On 2004-07-17 02:40:54 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
libraries which is linked with the code is LGPL, which is QPL
compatible, plus some exception that RMS
Andrew Suffield wrote:
General Electric is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
(IBM Works does not infringe Microsoft Works). Apple's probably
lawyer-bait.
How about Boots, Caterpillar, Dell, Ford, Game, Nestle, Shell, Sky,
Next, etc.? Are all these trademarks lawyer-bait as
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-07-19 11:38:23 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL discriminates against people on
desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
I must have missed that one. How?
Because they can't give any of the contents to their
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:55:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if the developer is just doing it for himself, then the clause
doesn't apply.
Let's go through this again:-
`These items, when distributed, are subject ..'
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:00:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-19 16:33:34 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) point 6c of the QPL fails the chinese dissident or desert
island tests.
Apart from the the dubious justification of those tests (i would
much have
MJ Ray writes:
On 2004-07-19 11:38:23 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL discriminates against people on
desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
I must have missed that one. How?
Easy - if you don't have the sources to those binaries, how can you
meet
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:00:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I have been away. I find your impatience as irritating as your
continual unprovoked rudeness and paranoia.
Not to mention the way Branden and its cronies greated me on irc last time i
came there, making joke of my previous post to
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 12:00, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wouldn't consider a license free if it said, for example, if you
modify
this program you must add your name to this wiki page as soon as
possible.
It wouldn't fail the desert island test (as soon as
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:43:23PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
General Electric is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
(IBM Works does not infringe Microsoft Works). Apple's probably
lawyer-bait.
How about Boots, Caterpillar, Dell, Ford, Game,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:00:17PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wouldn't consider a license free if it said, for example, if you
modify
this program you must add your name to this wiki page as soon as
possible.
It wouldn't fail the desert island test
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:55:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Or he can publish a request that anyone with changes send them to
him. It doesn't say the request has to be personal or private.
And how exactly will he prove such a request reached
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:21:16AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Here's a recap of one point in subthread:
This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my
opinion. The license may not require a royalty
or other fee for such sale.
[...]
It's ok to say: here's the big
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam
upstream
with every change done should resolve all the issue. Or maybe giving him
consultation access would be enough.
Spamming upstream is not enough. You have to provide one on
He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the generic
call. Additionally, the idea is not to help users get away with as
Well, i am somehow doubtfull that sucha generic call is legally binding, so
your point is moot. How can upstream guarantee that the modifier did receive
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What? That doesn't follow at all. Even ignoring that, you're still
wrong. You have no guarantee that upstream hasn't done something that is
assumed to breach the GPL, such as depending on a BSDed library that
happens to link against OpenSSL. If the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-07-19 11:38:23 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL discriminates against people on
desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
I must have missed that one. How?
Because they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the code is free, no problem with that, you just can't link it with
GPLed code, or more exactly you can't distribute the result of the linking
with GPLed code, which is not something we are doing.
Debian is distributing them linked, with special scripts to pull
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:41:39PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam
upstream
with every change done should resolve all the issue. Or maybe giving him
consultation access
Look, either you can complain that you didn't hear from debian-legal,
or you can complain that you heard about it from a followup to a
coincidentally-timed bug, but you can't have both at once.
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:02:49PM -0500, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
While I don't see anything with this addendum that prevents it from being
DFSG-free, I personally would avoid distributing the covered software
under this license addendum. I don't see anything here that is necessary
for
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the generic
call. Additionally, the idea is not to help users get away with as
Well, i am somehow doubtfull that sucha generic call is legally binding, so
Well, sure. That said, the QPL is a stock licence, and it may be easier to get
Trolltech to amend that.
INRIA is not distributing OCaml under the stock QPL. They are using a
derivation of the QPL, with several changes.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:39:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:55:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Or he can publish a request that anyone with changes send them to
him. It doesn't say the request has to be
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the code is free, no problem with that, you just can't link it with
GPLed code, or more exactly you can't distribute the result of the linking
with GPLed code, which is not something we
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:54:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Look, either you can complain that you didn't hear from debian-legal,
I didn't hear from debian-lega.
or you can complain that you heard about it from a followup to a
coincidentally-timed bug, but you can't have both at
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:58:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Well, sure. That said, the QPL is a stock licence, and it may be easier to
get
Trolltech to amend that.
INRIA is not distributing OCaml under the stock QPL. They are using a
derivation of the QPL, with several
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the code is free, no problem with that, you just can't link it with
GPLed code, or more exactly you can't distribute the result of the linking
with
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:25:12AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:53:45PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
You're seriously suggesting that Debian wouldn't be laughed out of the
park for releasing without Mozilla at the moment? If you
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 02:22:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the code is free, no problem with that, you just can't link it with
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
What request ? And i doubt you can prove to the judge you ever made that
request to me.
I bought a commerical on cable asking for modifiers to send me their
changes. I believe he was watching at that time. Then, since you have
no
What request ? And i doubt you can prove to the judge you ever made that
request to me.
I bought a commerical on cable asking for modifiers to send me their
changes. I believe he was watching at that time. Then, since you have
no right to stay silent in civil court, the judge can turn to you
The GPL discriminates against people on
desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
I must have missed that one. How?
Because they can't give any of the contents to their washed-up
companion.
That person has either deleted his copies of the source or failed to
ask for them;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL discriminates against people on
desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
I must have missed that one. How?
Because they can't give any of the contents to their washed-up
companion.
That person has either deleted his copies of the source or
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the
QPL are in the form of licenses to the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:58:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Well, sure. That said, the QPL is a stock licence, and it may be easier to
get
Trolltech to amend that.
INRIA is not distributing OCaml under the stock QPL. They are using a
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:32:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the dissident test would only be an issue in jurisdictions with
hostile governments.
Which happens to be all jurisdictions. Some of them
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:38:23AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You have, and those arguments are weak. There's also disagreement here -
some people claim forced distribution breaches DFSG 1, some claim it
breaches DFSG 5. There's no consistent and coherent argument going on,
other than a
Sven Luther writes:
Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding.
I do. More to the point, neither of us is the judge who's going to
be judging this. It's much safer to interpret a license literally and
slightly broadly, then to try and guess what is and isn't legally
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:28:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:08:24PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL discriminates against people on
desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
I must have missed that one. How?
Because they can't give any of the contents to their washed-up
companion.
That person
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:49:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because they can't give any of the contents to their washed-up
companion.
That person has either deleted his copies of the source or failed to
ask for them; either way, it's his
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:28:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
For example, the QPL's demand for a permissive license for the initial
author is a fee. The license has value, and I may not make
modifications without granting it. I incur a cost, loss of control.
The recipient
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:42:26AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
My rule of thumb would be that any technical restriction that
significantly reduces the set of people who can distribute modified
versions is probably non-free. For instance, patch clauses are fine
since anyone able to modify the
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:00:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-19 16:33:34 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) point 6c of the QPL fails the chinese dissident or desert
island tests.
Apart from the the dubious justification of those tests (i would
much have
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding.
I do. More to the point, neither of us is the judge who's going to
Well, as said, i did some legal consulting, and the mention that a TV
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:24:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:58:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Well, sure. That said, the QPL is a stock licence, and it may be easier
to get
Trolltech to amend that.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-12 02:46]:
IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been
formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:50:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:34:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
What request ? And i doubt you can prove to the judge you ever made that
request to me.
I bought a commerical on cable asking for modifiers to send me their
changes.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:10:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but it is by no means reason enough to declare the QPL non-free.
I didn't claim that it was, so this statement isn't relevant.
Ok, so everything is fine, and there is no reason to change the licence, nor
to remove
Sven Luther writes:
The exact text of the licence is :
Choice of Law
This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
settled by the Court of Versailles.
So this means that it is a question of choice of law rather than choice of
venue.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Furthermore, as the choice of law is the french law, preliminary information
seem to indicate that any procedure should be domiciliated at the domicil of
the defendor, which would make this clause illegal and thus void.
Good, then
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Ok if you want to focus on that aspect, I've included enough material
in this thread to show you what you originally said, and the way you
said it.
All right. Which licenses to we accept as DFSG-free even though they
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:12:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
WRONG. Debian is distributing them in source form, and the compilation is done
at installation time, and the linking at emacs run time. Furthermore, since i
remove them from binary packages, even the above is not done.
Assuming this
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:48:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
MJ Ray writes:
On 2004-07-19 11:38:23 +0100 Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL discriminates against people on
desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
I must have missed that one. How?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:21:57PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
The exact text of the licence is :
Choice of Law
This license is governed by the Laws of France. Disputes shall be
settled by the Court of Versailles.
So this
[self-followup to add some information and make a correction]
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:10:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
You did not use the words delegate or official, nor anything synonymous
as far as I can tell, in your reply to Mr. Quinlan.
Sorry, I meant to rewrite this paragraph
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
Let's keep in mind that the FSF has a copyright assigment policy as
well. It's very, very similar to BSP's, as I understand it, except
that whereas the FSF is the assignee of the copyright and grants
back to the original copyright holder a
And i have some doubt that if he failed to ask for them (or you where a
little
silent on the proposing of them as we often do at shows and such), that
changes anything to the issue. You should have given them to him anyway, as
is your obligation under the GPL.
Where, specifically, is the
Please CC me, as i am not subscribed, and uysing lynx over ssh to participate
is hardly convenient.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:12:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
WRONG. Debian is distributing them in source form, and the compilation is
done
at installation time, and the linking at emacs run
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:04:40AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of The copyright
holder may terminate this license at any time discriminate against? How
does this field of endeavour fall under DFSG 6 without it being read in
an
Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Furthermore, as the choice of law is the french law, preliminary information
seem to indicate that any procedure should be domiciliated at the domicil of
the defendor, which
Thanks for CCing me as i have requested here repeteadle.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:10:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, and i believe that the Apple licence, the NPL and many other such ones
have similar properties. Why are we not picking on them ?
If I remember correctly, both the
Hallo Ihr Lieben,
kann mir jemand eine nette, gute deutschsprachige Mailingliste
empfehlen, in der man auch als Anfänger in der C-Programmierung seine
Fragen stellen kann? Würde ich jetzt googlen, erhielte ich zwar bestimmt
eine Menge Ergebnisse, aber ich müsste die Listen dann zuerst abonnieren
Sven Luther writes:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:21:57PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Civil law countries define and treat contracts differently than common
law countries. I'm not a lawyer, much less one specializing in
international law, so I can't very well say how valid that clause
would be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL discriminates against people on
desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
I must have missed that one. How?
Because they can't give any of the contents to their washed-up
companion.
That person has either deleted his copies of the source or
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:19:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here.
Please fix your mailer to set a corresponding header, instead of
expecting every subscriber to this list to do your work for you.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
