Breaking new.
Barnes Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al):
-
Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or
rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintiff also argues that the
GPL purports to defeat the requirements of contractual privity and
thus evade
Barnes Thornburg LLP on price:
---
Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works
at no charge is somehow a minimum re-sale price is untenable given
that the provision does not set a price for licenses at all, but
rather provides that there shall be no price for
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/14/06, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at
On 2/22/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... Not a Contract ...]
I do not see why you object to this theory.
Go ask Barnes Thornburg LLP. [O]ne of the Midwest's largest law
firms says that
The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license
applicable to anyone who receives its
On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barnes Thornburg LLP on price:
---
Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works
at no charge is somehow a minimum re-sale price is untenable given
that the provision does not set a price for licenses at
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/22/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... Not a Contract ...]
I do not see why you object to this theory.
Go ask Barnes Thornburg LLP. [O]ne of the Midwest's largest law
firms says that
The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license
Barnes Thornburg LLP on conspiracy.
--
Finally, the Response confirms that there is no alleged conspiracy,
as the GPL is allegedly public by its nature with hundreds and
potentially an unlimited number of programmers using the program.
(Response at 3.) The allegations support no more than a
debian-legal is not your personal blog. Stop spamming it with
off-topic troll postings already. If you want to rant or rave about
nutcases tilting at windmills, do it in an appropriate place.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On 2/22/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The GPL give you *more* permissions than copyright law; so a
contract is not needed because the forbidden things by the GPL
are forbidden by copyright law anyway. If you break the GPL
you just can get sued because you have distributed/modified
Moglen's underling Fontana in action.
http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx
On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to fix this, and
this is a matter that needs to be taken up by the legislature, Fontana
said.
But, that being said,
Page 2 exhibit managed to escape. Bringing it back.
On 2/22/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moglen's underling Fontana in action.
http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx
On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to
Olive, this guy is just a troll. Feeding him just seems to make him
waste more of Debian's bandwidth and my spambox. My advice is to leave
him be.
--
-
| ,''`.Stephen Gran |
| : :' :
Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I'll advice guys I introduced to
Debian to also write such a mail once they get into similar situations,
though.
Unless they can add some new argument as to why a manual under
an FDL-1.2 adware licence actually follows the DFSG, simply
writing
olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component. It is reasonable to think that the use of
Debian requires the GFDL documentation.
Even assuming the above it is reasonable is true[0], the following
does not hold:
If Debian
Hi,
However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
http://www.portaudio.com/license.html:
* Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
Sounds
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:26:27PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
I don't know of any device that rejects files of a particular encoding. Can
you give an example of such a device?
My portable music player barfs pretty badly on anything that isn't ASCII.
But
16 matches
Mail list logo
