posted mailed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, but that is circular reasoning. Why is this a bad thing, *IF IT
IS A MINOR REQUIREMENT*?
Because it is actually taking away rights.
Still circular. How does this violate DFSG?
I think you are talking about
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a different
license), and this license took those
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every*
software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the
dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs Law
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
snip
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
I think this is the crux of the matter. But -just thinking
aloud here- what if the consideration is you promise to
Lex Spoon wrote:
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
Certainly it's a problem if the consideration is sending $1000 to the
author. However, DFSG1 says merely that you cannot charge a royalty or
fee; it does not
batist wrote:
snip
It's a bit like the
contract of a gift. The only consideration in a gift is on the side of
the party imposing the contract. And don't worry, gifts are entirely
legal in civil law.
Perhaps the correct statement is that free licenses must be gifts? :-)
This corresponds
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Since the contract does not give me obligations, you cannot
enforce anything. But I can enforce it against you if you
later say I am not licensed.
I think that is the key point. In common-law countries, both sides must
have obligations for
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email,
receive email, and browse web pages. There may be no incremental cost
associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost. (Therefore
it's not free, so I don't have to
Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email,
receive email, and browse web pages. There may be no incremental cost
associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost. (Therefore
it's not free, so I don't have to send one)
True, but a license clause
On Jun 29, 2004, at 15:05, Lex Spoon wrote:
More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose
it
says you must email the author before distributing a modified version,
provided that sending one email is free for you. This is certainly
annoying, but it's very minor and it
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 21:16, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I really do not see why these are a problem to have free licenses:
* A meeting of minds: the license issuer need never receive
communication from the licensee, so how can there be meeting of the
minds?
already discussed properly.
Josh Triplett wrote:
Lex Spoon wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
[...]
More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose
it says you must
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* A meeting of minds: the license issuer need never receive
communication from the licensee, so how can there be meeting of the
minds?
That's an interesting requirement that is apparently different in
different countries; in some places, it seems, you
--- Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's criminal in Brasil? Not a tort? Wacky. So you don't get any
damages from me infringing your copyrights?
tom:
For what i know TORT category just exist in commn law (england, american,
canadian, systems), and that hasen't the
Joe Moore wrote:
Josh Triplett wrote:
Lex Spoon wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
[...]
More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose
it
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
For copyleft licenses, at least, the promise of future derivative
works being released
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Then the license is requiring me to form a (US-style) contract in
order to pass on the software, which is a non-free burden on me. For
example, a requirement that I get everyone to whom I give the software
to agree to some EULA is non-free: they aren't copying or
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For copyleft licenses, at least, the promise of future derivative
works being released with source under similar terms could quite
easily be argued to fulfill consideration.
That's only reasonable if
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but that is a nitpick IMHO. What good is an offer that you never
plan to use? If you prefer, call the relevent clause of GPL to be an
offer of a contract, instead of being a contract itself. It
@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that one
had to accept the GPL in order to receive the licenses it offers,
because it's a contract, and that it had to be a contract, because
one had to accept it to receive certain
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that one
had to accept the GPL in order to receive the licenses it offers,
because it's a contract, and that it had to be a contract, because
@ 29/06/2004 11:28 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that
one had to accept the GPL in order to receive the licenses it
offers, because it's a
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:28:10AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
If I issue a license as my example above, but appending provided you
wear yellow underpants, and then discover that you have distributed
copies of the software without wearing yellow underpants, can I
enforce the contract
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@ 29/06/2004 11:28 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@ 28/06/2004 15:38 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
A whole bunch of your argument was balanced on the claim that
one had to accept the GPL in order
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:28:10AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
If I issue a license as my example above, but appending provided you
wear yellow underpants, and then discover that you have distributed
copies of the software without wearing yellow
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 16:28, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every*
software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the
dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every*
software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the
dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs Law
(9.609/98), to Contract Law
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 19:11, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
If you ever see a license which suggests the death penalty, I do hope
you'll consider it non-free.
The license can never suggest such thing (i believe so also in BR law -
certainly belgian law), because the criminal part is enforced in
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Here, I send you this shell script I have written, which highlights
3com devices: 'cat /proc/pci | tr 3 \*'. I grant you a license to
use, modify, and distribute it, and to distribute
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My response: I do not accept the license grant. Therefore, I
have rejected your offer and so I am not bound to do anything
in return.
So if you say you want to give me your watch, and I say I want it, can
you not
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, in the US a contract has a few requirements inconsistent
with a free license:
This, by the way, is the kind of thing that should be talked about.
Still, I am not clear on why these things *must* be non-free.
* A meeting of minds:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
For copyleft licenses, at least, the promise of future derivative
works being released with source under similar terms could quite
Lex Spoon wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
the licensor, the license can't be free.
[...]
More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose it
says you must email the author before
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:32:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
* It discriminates against people who cannot (or simply do not want to)
identify themselves (unless they have some sort of method to send
anonymous email). See also the Dissident test in the DFSG FAQ.
I'd
Lex Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second, while acceptance alone does not obligate anything of you, some
obligations do kick in if you try to use some of the rights you have
been granted. For example, if you take the option to distribute
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
License
agreements are not contracts -- even the GPL is not, since I have not
offered or performed anything in exchange for receiving those
licenses.
In many jurisdictions (Scotland is one, Germany another (IIRC)),
consideration is not necessary to form a
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Textbook Example: in Scotland, if you advertise a reward for returning
your lost cellphone, you are contractually obligated to reward the
person returning the phone. If you refuse, they can take you to court
for this reward. (In this case, the phone is not
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but that is a nitpick IMHO. What good is an offer that you never
plan to use? If you prefer, call the relevent clause of GPL to be an
offer of a contract, instead of being a contract itself. It doesn't
seem to change the essence of the
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 03:03:06PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
That is not exactly my argument: I think you have to agree to a license
agreement before you gain the included license, and I also think a
license agreement can perfectly well make requirements on both parties
while still being a
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the
Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of
converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major media[3
Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate
of converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major
media[3] and proprietary software[4][5] companies.
I personally think this explains a great many of the divergences
between Debian's assessment of licenses and OSI's.
In law
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:41:23PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
The GNU/GPL, OTOH, does not impose an obligation on *use*. Obviously,
the FSF does not require it to be `accepted'. The policy of certain
package installation software, (typically on non-free platforms)
insisting on the
* it -- since use is not normally restricted by copyright
law -- is trying to be a contract, and is also non-free.
Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the
Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of
converting copyright licenses into contracts[2
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Indeed. Larry Rosen, who is an attorney and is the legal advisor to the
Board of the Open Source Initiative[1], is a major advocate of
converting copyright licenses into contracts[2], as are major media[3]
and proprietary
45 matches
Mail list logo
