Am Mo 28 Jan 2008 09:25:21 CET
schrieb Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I cannot speak to the British system, so John
> my very well be right in that context, but in the United States the
> critical question is whether the advice being given is of a specific
> or general nature.
In Germany the
Am Mo 28 Jan 2008 09:27:54 CET
schrieb "John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on
> earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as
> constituting "legal advice" in the first place.
Okay: Yes there is. At least the German on
Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
> disclaimer like "TINLA"?
I think the long list of acronyms may be a sly dig at certain silly
postings in times past which complained that certain people weren't making
it clear enough
On Monday 28 January 2008 01:27:54 am John Halton wrote:
> > Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal
> > system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is
> > a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it
> > away post fac
On Jan 26, 2008 2:52 PM, Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
> disclaimer like "TINLA"?
Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on
earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as
constit
On torsdagen den 24 januari 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVisio
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:23:53AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by
Hi,
Francesco Poli schrieb:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> [...]
>> *If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to
>> create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it
>> requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> *If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to
> create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it
> requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create/distribute
> derivative works.
I for
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:11:48 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> The "may be non-free" aspect was the requirement of requiring the
> creator of the derivative work to surrender their copyright to
> OpenVision. If such a requirement were in place in the license terms,
> I would regard it as non-free.
On Jan 24, 2008 12:23 AM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the
> > licence, but it's not non-free.
>
> I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of "retain
> copyright" is not all-inclusive.
Well, as ever in t
John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by
> > > > a third party." I think this could threat t
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision
> > >also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
> > >created by OpenVision or by a third party." I think this could threat
> > > this software freedom.
> >
> AIUI th
Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a
> > >
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * line 81-83: "OpenVision
> >also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
> >created by OpenVision or by a third party." I think this could threat
> > this s
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:28 +, John Halton wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
> the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
>
> --
Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... I think the license of krb5
> (http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/k/krb5/krb5_1.4.3-5ubuntu0.2/)
>
> has two unclear sections regarding freedom:
>
> * line 18-21: "Export of this software from the United States of
> America may requir
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
---
The following copyright and permission notice appli
Hi Debian-legal.
We (gNewSense) just had someone report [3] two clauses in the krb5 (source)
package. [1] has its current (Sid) copyright file.
I dont see a bug about it, so i'm asking if someone could look at the licence
and say if they think the clauses are DFSG free or not?
Thanks in advance,
19 matches
Mail list logo
