"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
The Eiffel "license" ...
... may be too "permissive" to constitute an enforceable
agreement...in that it appears to lack consideration.
I am aware that in some countries, a consideration is required to make a
contract enforceable. But does that also apply to
I have not read the BSD licenses in a while, but I know that the FSF/Richard
Stallman argues that they have no copyleft provision. Again, the absence of
a copyleft provision in a public license is not a critical failure to
maintaining an open source/free software project, but the absence of
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Someone, I have forgotten who, sorry, made an interesting comment about the
enforceability of GPLs, generally. I agree that it is an open question
whether a court would enforce some public licenses. If a license lacks
consideration, it's
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Someone, I have forgotten who, sorry, made an interesting comment about the
enforceability of GPLs, generally. I agree that it is an open question
whether a court would enforce some public licenses. If a license lacks
consideration, it's
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Patrick Doyle wrote:
Legally, you can do two things:
1. Adhere to the terms of the license.
2. Don't make copies of the software.
Is it not that simple? (Please excuse my ignorance. :-)
That's the way I have always viewed licenses. You have a limited set of
rights
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Patrick Doyle wrote:
Legally, you can do two things:
1. Adhere to the terms of the license.
2. Don't make copies of the software.
Is it not that simple? (Please excuse my ignorance. :-)
[...]
I have a big
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I have not read the BSD licenses in a while, but I know that the FSF/Richard
Stallman argues that they have no copyleft provision.
...
Consequently, I think this is a rather appropriate time to discuss
the BSD and other public licenses.
I
7 matches
Mail list logo
