Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 14:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The court in ProCD held that a shrinkwrap software license, that is, a license that accompanies software limiting its use, is an effective contract under the UCC against anyone who receives the terms of the license and uses the

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isaac wrote: [...] Nonsense. 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

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

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,

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

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

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Barnes Thornburg LLP on price: --- Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...] He he. You are hopping with glee because a commentary butchers the theories of your personal hero? Well, Wallace

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Barnes Thornburg LLP on price: --- Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...] He he. You are hopping with glee because a

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Barnes Thornburg LLP on price: --- Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...] He he. You are hopping with glee because a commentary butchers the theories of your personal hero? Well, Wallace certainly provides you with fun, it

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Barnes Thornburg LLP on price: --- Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...] He he. You are hopping with glee because a commentary butchers the theories of

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Barnes Thornburg LLP on price: --- Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works Uhmm. Wallace's argument was about collective works to begin with. - Alternative Vertical Analysis In the alternative, if the GPL license is

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isaac wrote: [...] Nonsense. 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

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:32:06 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html#em-warranty - The warranty exclusions that were in GPL2 have not been changed saving one way: I took them out of all uppercase. [laughter] I've

Eben was absent that day in law school

http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html#em-warranty - The warranty exclusions that were in GPL2 have not been changed saving one way: I took them out of all uppercase. [laughter] I've wanted to do that for a very long time. I've wanted to do that for a very long time