I think someone suggested dropping the word "reasonable." I think that is a
good idea. RMS seems to think so too.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 1:41 AM
To: David Johnson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
I can't understand this. You agree, completely, that we don't know (barring
someone doing legal research) what 'reasonable fee' means. And then you
argue that as long as the definition of an ephemeral word is not contested,
there's no problem,
-Original Message-
From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
SNIP
I can't understand this. You agree, completely, that we don't
know (barring
someone doing legal research) what 'reasonable fee' means. And then you
argue that as long as the definition of an ephemeral
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I think someone suggested dropping the word "reasonable." I think
that is a
good idea. RMS seems to think so too.
True, but RMS is not a god, and we are debating wether the license is Open
Source, not Free
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
SNIP I suspect, however,
that you may want to go a step further and disclaim any liability
for injury
from use of the program for the purposes that the program was not
designed.
If so, I would add a
David Johnson wrote:
As a practical matter, though, this is just as meaningless as arguing
over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin :-)
But does computation require a material substrate? :-)
You're only
supposed to submit the code upon request. First of all, Lucent has to
know
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
It has come to
my attention that the Apache license is not present on the "approved
list" of licenses at http://www.opensource.org.
The Apache license is just the old BSD license, with what is sometimes
called "the obnoxious advertising clause". Since the BSD
SamBC wrote:
Sounds like it prohibts nothing, just demands that modifications be
submitted to the originator, as in many current licenses.
Which is the notional equivalent of demanding that the marginal notes you
make in a book you own constitute a modified work, and that you must send
a
John Cowan wrote:
The Apache license is just the old BSD license, with what is sometimes
called "the obnoxious advertising clause".
That clause was removed in 1.1 of the Apache licence.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coarhttp://Golux.Com/coar/
Apache Software Foundation
First of all, there is one fact that you cannot avoid: there are certain
disclaimers that will not stand up in court.
State law usually controls this issue. I represented a client in a contract
dispute and I got the disclaimer my client did not like thrown out fairly
easily. Consumer protection
At 11:46 AM -0700 7/23/00, Rick Moen wrote:
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
No, I was just addressing the comment of "well, the disclaimer clause
is enough and it just requires judges ruling the correct way"
(paraphrased), to which I was indicating that what you and I consider
I Agree.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: SamBC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 9:21 AM
To: License Discussion (opensource)
Subject: RE: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
You're saying "Trust The Courts"
I said no such thing.
However, your repeated and willful misreadings of my post were tiresome
the first time. Three times is thrice too many, and I have no time for
this sort of nonsense.
--
Cheers,
At 10:51 AM -0700 7/24/00, Rick Moen wrote:
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
You're saying "Trust The Courts"
I said no such thing.
However, your repeated and willful misreadings of my post were tiresome
the first time. Three times is thrice too many, and I have no time for
this sort
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
Hope... trust... same thing
Judges... courts... same thing
Read what I said more attentively, or don't. But in either case, don't
waste more of my time.
--
Cheers, "Open your present"
Rick Moen
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
The Apache license is just the old BSD license, with what is sometimes
called "the obnoxious advertising clause".
That clause was removed in 1.1 of the Apache licence.
More precisely, replaced with a much less
Is anyone familiar with this license and/or OSI's
relationship to or opinion of it?
It purports to be a more appropriate "copyleft" license
for artistic work, much in the same spirit as the
GPL, but with some additional protection for the
artistic integrity of a work -- mainly that it forces
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Are you sure in your jurisdiction that that applies to transactions
without "consideration"?
Consideration is pretty much a matter of form, and a court can find consideration
almost anywhere. For example, clause 3 of the Apache license would certainly be
Terry Hancock wrote:
Is anyone familiar with this license and/or OSI's
relationship to or opinion of it?
A quick read over the license suggests that it is OSD-compliant;
it is very close to the GPL and the Artistic License.
Opinion? Comments? Flames? :)
Disclaimer: IANAOSImember.
--
At 1:23 PM -0700 7/24/00, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Justin Wells wrote:
Refresher: what we're talking about is whether or not you can get away
with "do not use this software for life-safety systems" in an opensource
license (violating fields of endeavour) and if you don't
20 matches
Mail list logo
