Please forgive the newbie-to-this-list question (the list server is
obstinately refusing to let me access previous messages except one at a
time by index number) ...
I am one of the contributors to the Tomcat project, which is under the
Jakarta project umbrella at Apache
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
You seem to misunderstand and believe that the "correct" ideal for
your jurisdiction matches the "correct" conclusion for all other
jurisdictions.
Either I'm missing something, here, or you are, or you're just trying to
be argumentative. Regardless of
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost
of any media.
This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial
distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit.
I don't think this is really a
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
But there is, potentially, a difference -- someone can take you to court
over whether your fee was 'reasonable.' The GPL has no such limits:
The clause in question does not state that Lucent gets to decide what
is "reasonable". For all intents and
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
"correct" may not match the legal statutes of some
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote:
The clause in question does not state that Lucent gets to decide what
is "reasonable". For all intents and purposes, if a buyer and a sell
agree on a price, it is reasonable. As such, it is a meaningless
adjective.
You are trying to treat the
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 01:51:04PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
This software is not designed or intended for use in
real-time or on-line control of nuclear, chemical,
aviation, medical, or life-safety critical systems.
I'm going to adopt this language in my license for
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
You are trying to treat the license as a cut and dried technical
statement, and it's not; its application includes jurisdiction,
precedence, judge, and jury. Any one of those can make a decision about
what 'reasonable' means.
All too often it
Why not specify in the license what 'reasonable' means. I would simply state
(as I have seen)
"You will not be required at any point to justify a charge as reasonable to
anyone except the party(ies) whom you are charging"
SamBC
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote:
Is there a problem with deleting the word reasonable? Are you simply
arguing that it doesn't need to be deleted, that it's too small detail to
matter? Because we don't know what reasonable might mean in a court
room, and it might make a
-Original Message-
From: Derek J. Balling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
SNIP
Wasn't trying to be argumentative, and I don't think "no further
comment is required". I really think this is an issue that requires
some attention, on one front or another
I agree - there should be
I am reading this out of the context of the entire license, but the wording
seems fine. Please excuse me from repeating what others may have already
said. I think this language is good and could be enhanced with an additional
phrase or two depending on your purpose. For example, as you have
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, John Cowan wrote:
This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a
basic right
I agree with RMS here. Not allowing the private use of private changes
is way unreasonable.
As a practical matter, though, this is just as meaningless as arguing
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote:
Is there a problem with deleting the word reasonable? Are you simply
arguing that it doesn't need to be deleted, that it's too small detail to
matter? Because we don't know what reasonable might mean
I think the fact that the Plan 9 license is not written in the clearest
language has resulted in Stillman reading some of the provisions in a manner
they were not intended. Although I do not favor the U.S. export regulations
(even the revised regulations are faulty), Stillman cannot be correct
15 matches
Mail list logo
