Dear Eben and others,
Here's another interesting case, this one perhaps more directly related to
the designation of someone as a trusted and accountable fiduciary for
licensing intellectual property:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company
/Larry
Zooko,
It might be worth mentioning here that you and I have had discussions
for years about the idea of drafting TGPPL as a set of exceptions to
Affero GPLv3 and/or GPLv3.
I believe this is indeed possible, but requires a good amount of tuits.
IIRC, Zooko, first draft was on you, right? :)
--
On Wednesday, 14 August 2013, John Cowan wrote:
Suppose that Alice sells Bob the source code to Yoyomat, a
proprietary program with delayed GPL. After the term has passed, Bob
may now distribute *that very copy* of Yoyomat freely to Charlie
under the terms of the GPL. In the scenario you
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers
generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used
the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward
permissive licenses.
John Cowan wrote at 09:49 (EDT):
Pam, Luis:
I have fixed this.
- Richard
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 04:27:01PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
Hi, Pam-
Right place; right comment. I'm a bit out of pocket right now with
regards to passwords for the site (a long, sad story involving
multiple computers and a lot of travel ;) but will
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:17:47AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Sorry for posting a month late on this thread [I hadn't poked into the
folder for this list in some time], but I didn't see a consensus and
wanted to add my $0.02.
Luis Villa wrote on 16 July:
In the long-term, I'd actually
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 08:44:02PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Zooko,
It might be worth mentioning here that you and I have had discussions
for years about the idea of drafting TGPPL as a set of exceptions to
Affero GPLv3 and/or GPLv3.
I believe this is indeed possible,
Not with an
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.
It is ironic that you wrote: Specific performance, a mandatory remedial
order
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.
Yes, that's the alternative I originally recommended and that we have
been
Eben Moglen scripsit:
Yes, it is simple. I am asserting that in no meaningful sense is your
agreement enforceable, if during the period of the proprietary
agreement your promisor revokes and refuses to issue the program under
free license.
That surely won't work, but it's not what I take
On 8/17/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any
license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was
more problematic than useful. Linking to a*wide* variety of license
choosers or summary sites with a very strong
On Sunday, 18 August 2013, John Cowan wrote:
That surely won't work, but it's not what I take Larry to be describing.
Rather, he is talking about a contract which grants the right *to the
licensee* to distribute copies of his copy under the GPL, provided
he does so not earlier than one
On 8/15/2013 10:17 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
I was told GitHub's chooser accepts patches, and I was planning at some
point to try to patch out this bias myself and see if my patch was
accepted -- but of course any patch I produce is going to have subtle
copyleft biases -- which I think was
Eben Moglen scripsit:
No, Mr Cowan. The license only exists if the precedent license hasn't
been terminated or revoked during the term.
There is no precedent license. There is only one license, some of whose
terms don't come into effect for a while.
So the presumptive GPL distributor who
I'll elect to focus on Eben's legal arguments rather than his ad hominem
attacks. I do so with the intent of alerting the rest of this list to his
misstatements of the law, not to try to educate him.
Eben is right that a license can terminate before its terms are completely
executed, for reasons
You seem determined to take offense, Mr Cowan.
In the first place, I think you might have missed the point of the
Shakespeare quotation preceding the remark you object to. I didn't
compare Mr Rosen to a 1L. I wrote that the unavailability of specific
performance in contract is 1L material. I
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
I'll elect to focus on Eben's legal arguments rather than his ad hominem
attacks.
Indeed; far better to remain above the fray yourself, and allow your
outraged and moralistic friends (such as myself) to play Huxley to
your Darwin.
Eben is right that a license can
17 matches
Mail list logo
