Glenn Maynard said on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400,:
would the individual clause or the entire license be considered
invalid? If the latter, licenses with unenforcable clauses should
probably be considered non-free, as the license could be terminated
as a result.
That
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]
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
clauses?
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising
Branden Robinson said on Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:45:39PM -0500,:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:29:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To veer off the subject a little, we don't like licenses which
engage in too much contract-like behavior, because they're
usually non-free. In
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
On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
clauses?
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
which seems to be
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This license is governed by the Laws of the Netherlands. Disputes shall
be settled by Amsterdam City Court.
I'm not particularly familiar with these clauses, but isn't the second
sentence a choice of venue? It doesn't feel
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern ---
to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other
software,
@ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
I don't believe this for a moment. Not in the US, and most certainly not
in
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 27/04/2004 10:05 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I have no idea whether a US court would like to apply this
clause, but if the author goes to court, he is likely to get
the court to use Dutch law, using this clause.
I don't believe this for a moment. Not in the US,
@ 27/04/2004 18:47 : wrote Arnoud Engelfriet :
I do know Dutch law, and under Dutch law a choice of law is
certainly respected in contracts, unless it's clearly totally
inappropriate.
And there has been quite some European caselaw that acknowledges the
possibility.
Here, the only law that
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 10:25:17PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 06:26:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
The QPL doesn't prevent forking, but the requirement to distribute
changes to the original source as patches makes a fork significantly
more difficult. This
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:29:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
To veer off the subject a little, we don't like licenses which engage
in too much contract-like behavior, because they're usually non-free.
In particular, any license which requires that you agree to it in
order to *use* it --
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern ---
to be
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
Scripsit Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While I am not a lawyer, I am a law student... and if I remember
anything from my civil procedure course I don't think this
particular choice of venue clause would stick in an international
setting.
I'm with you there. But I think we usually take a
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:05:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
(However, in other cases we have ruled that some clause is not
non-free only because it is not enforceable, so perhaps our general
position is not very clear).
I'm not generally comfortable with that approach. For one thing, the
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a
license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
clauses?
I can't place it exactly either, but I think it was some variant of
the BSDish you must/must not utter
On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 17:08, martin f krafft wrote:
It'd be nice if this license would go away. I'd recommend the
same thing that was recommended in the previous thread: ask the
upstream authors to dual license under the GPL, just like
Trolltech did.
I am working on it. In the mean
martin f krafft wrote:
snip
I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
there to be one libcwd, and only one libcwd, and no competition
from
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Choice of Law
This license is governed by the Laws of the Netherlands. Disputes shall
be settled by Amsterdam City Court.
I'm not particularly familiar with these clauses, but isn't the second
sentence a choice of venue? It doesn't feel free.
While I am not a lawyer, I am a law student... and if I remember anything
from my civil procedure course I don't think this particular choice of venue
clause would stick in an international setting. Violation of contract law is
handled by the nation in which the violation is committed (note,
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is just my two cents from a guy who reads debian-legal has never
commented before. If anyone knows some good case law that contradicts what
I've said, I'd be really interested to see it.
But free licenses are not contracts: they are deeds,
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Again, I must profess my limit knowledge here... but by including a
choice of law and choice of venue clause I begin to wonder if this
licenses starts to
look and smell an awful lot like a contract. While I generally agree with
your statement, it seems awful fishy in
Sorry, this should have gone to -legal straight, not first to
-devel.
Please CC me on replies!
I would like to package a software released under the QPL licence:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/libcwd/libcwd/LICENSE.QPL?rev=1.1
It *seems* that the QPL is DFSG-free, but I
, not first to
-devel.
Please CC me on replies!
I would like to package a software released under the QPL licence:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/libcwd/libcwd/LICENSE.QPL?rev=1.1
It *seems* that the QPL is DFSG-free, but I would like to have
confirming voices
Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I ee a problem with
6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
What if I have my family-only private piece
Hi,
Am Sa, den 24.04.2004 schrieb Walter Landry um 18:09:
6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
To be more concrete, this fails the desert island test.
On Apr 24, 2004, at 12:36, Joachim Breitner wrote:
I thought about that, but then I thought: If [..] requests - the
desert island guy can't be requested. But then, he might: cloud
painting, morse-earth-quakes, message-in-a-bottle...
Seems to be a corner case, and I have not yet an opinion on
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 12:09:58PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
To be more concrete, this fails the desert island test. If I make
modifications, then I have to give the initial developer a copy, even
if I am physically unable to do so. This differs from the give
source if you give binaries
It'd be nice if this license would go away. I'd recommend the
same thing that was recommended in the previous thread: ask the
upstream authors to dual license under the GPL, just like
Trolltech did.
I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
argument for the QPL. He is
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:08:54AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
there to be one libcwd, and only
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:08:54AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors
argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he
argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants
there to be one
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 06:26:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
The QPL doesn't prevent forking, but the requirement to distribute
changes to the original source as patches makes a fork significantly
more difficult. This restriction of the QPL is DFSG-free, but the other
FWIW, I'm among those
34 matches
Mail list logo
