On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Michael Poole wrote:
> It is not a fee: implicit warranty and similar liabilities are created
> by law. Where a warranty disclaimer applies, it is because the
> relevant law allows that warranty to be disclaimed.
I'm not sure that's a distinction. After all, a fee applies w
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:35 pm, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>> It is not discrimination: every user is treated identically.
>
> Same with the petting an animal... everyone has to do it. Did you know that
> pre-18 years olds CANNOT agree to a waiver of liability? Seems waiver
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:03:18PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > But, if I grant your point, and accept that the DFSG protects my right to
> > > all those things, why doesn't it invalidate licenses that waive liability
> > > to the distributor? Isn't that my inaliable right... a fee I must pay
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:35 pm, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sean Kellogg writes:
> > On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> In contrast to choice of law, choice of venue requires users who are
> >> not normally subject to that court's personal jurisdiction to give up
> >> a right th
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
>> In contrast to choice of law, choice of venue requires users who are
>> not normally subject to that court's personal jurisdiction to give up
>> a right they normally have to use the software. Take your pick
>> whethe
It amuses me to make the comparison between Mr. Kellogg's credentials
and my own. I am no undergrad either; shedding that status took me
four tries, two universities, and just over seven years. I graduated
in Physics with no distinction to speak of, in December 1995, and it
was rather an anticlim
Now, I recognize that I am still "in school" and haven't "taken the bar."
But
I'm no dummy. That being said, I have a lot to learn... but based on the
conversations on this list, I think I'm about as qualified as anyone else
to
point out that the term "available" is different from "distribu
On Sunday 31 July 2005 07:44 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> An undergrad law student. Letting law undergrads write licenses is at
> least as bad as letting CS undergrads write code (and CS students
> don't have to undergo further training before they can practice). And
> lawyers who've just passed th
On Sunday 31 July 2005 06:45 am, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sean Kellogg writes:
> > On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
> >> Sean Kellogg u.washington.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> [8< Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8<]
> >>
> >> > Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clau
Francesco Poli winstonsmith.info> writes:
> I've just re-read the relevant threads, and I do not agree that the two
> above mentioned clauses are the only issues.
[...]
> Consequently, the issues to be solved are, at least,
> . one in clause 4b
> . one in 4c
> . _two_ in 13
Okay, I have rew
On 7/31/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe a license that fits Michael's needs, but definitely *not* a
> DFSG-free one: unfortunately, at the moment, there are no CC licenses
> that comply with the DFSG...
I do not, at present, need a license at all; I am perfectly content
with
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:11:15 +0200 Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 11:30:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > On 7/30/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well, let's say "Almost All Rights Reserved".
> > > Anyway, it's still really far away from a DFSG-free docu
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 05:20:40PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Saturday 30 July 2005 04:38 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:55:33AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
> > > But if they are willing to
Sean Kellogg writes:
> On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:26 pm, Michael Janssen wrote:
>> Sean Kellogg u.washington.edu> writes:
>>
>> [8< Cut Venue Clause and re-writing 8<]
>>
>> > Hmm... Personally, I'm not convinced that venue clauses are non-free.
>> > But if they are willing to drop a venue req
On 7/30/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/30/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I count four issues the judge considered, with a bit of detail on each
> > of those issues.
>
> I didn't say six "issues". I said "six reasons why it would be
> inappropriate to gran
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 11:30:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/30/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, let's say "Almost All Rights Reserved".
> > Anyway, it's still really far away from a DFSG-free document: that's
> > basically what I meant...
>
> Oddly enough, the
I wrote:
> The contributory / direct infringement difference is kind of
> interesting from a tactical point of view ...
followed by some discussion about the Micro Star opinion that was more
inarticulate than usual.
The point I was trying to make, in sentences of 25 words or less: The
important p
On Sunday 31 July 2005 12:13 am, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/30/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > ... choice-of-venue clauses just keep people from playing
> > the venue shopping game.
>
> Is there actually anywhere in the world that a choice-of-venue clause
> in a co
On 7/30/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> ... choice-of-venue clauses just keep people from playing
> the venue shopping game.
Is there actually anywhere in the world that a choice-of-venue clause
in a contract of adhesion is worth the paper it isn't written on? I
wouldn't thi
19 matches
Mail list logo
