On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I just got a cc of questions sent by a Mozilla rep to the relevant
person. More news later, hopefully.
I'm still catching up on the list, so I may have missed your followup to
this (though there was none to this message)...
Has there
On 2004-07-07 12:42:22 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I just got a cc of questions sent by a Mozilla rep to the relevant
person.
More news later, hopefully.
[...]
Has there been any progress on this?
Not much. I
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people
to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the
legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for somebody
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
If there are no active patents covering the software,
Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in
respect of
Dear debian-legal subscribers,
Certain developers and others are promoting the idea that debian-legal
has declared the Mozilla Public Licence, which I don't think we have,
but sadly the thread has died out. I think that the large number of
responses to the draft summary shows that there is no
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
1. It does not allow derived works to be distributed under the same
terms as
the original software (DFSG #3).
If there are no active patents covering the software, I think clauses
2.1(b) and 2.1(d) are no-ops. If there were active
MJ wrote:
The reference offered as showing that SGI B is considered non-free only
showed one post to me, not a discussion.
I think I also referenced Bug #211765, where the license is described as
non-free, and a longer discussion is referenced:
MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
If there are no active patents covering the software,
Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in
respect of the software released, people
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:41:51AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,:
If there are no active patents covering the software,
Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively
enforced or not. If the license does not
On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly
helpful
in understanding why this makes something non-free, and similar
terms are
in some
On 2004-06-23 19:16:34 +0100 Jim Marhaus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think I also referenced Bug #211765, where the license is described
as
non-free, and a longer discussion is referenced:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2003/09/msg00410.html
OK, I missed that. The SGI F S L B clause seems
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly
helpful
in understanding why this
12 matches
Mail list logo
