On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
From what various legal scholars
tell me, a non-contractual license (such as the GPL) cannot cause you
to give up your warranty rights.
Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about the only solid
reason I see to need to go beyond copyright
Brian Behlendorf writes:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
From what various legal scholars
tell me, a non-contractual license (such as the GPL) cannot cause you
to give up your warranty rights.
Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about the only solid
Your questions actually raise many more issues than is apparent. The first
critical hurdle we need to conquer is the confusion over whether open source
licenses, which are presumed to be in compliance with the OSD, are properly
denominated non-contractual licenses. I do not agree with that
Russell Nelson scripsit:
If you could put restrictions on modification, then BitKeeper is open
source.
The GPL puts modest restrictions on modification, at least of interactive
programs. All OS licenses, or nearly all, prevent you from modifying
the copyright notices.
--
One art / There
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
From what various legal scholars
tell me, a non-contractual license (such as the GPL) cannot
cause you
to give up your warranty rights.
On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Is there a reference of some sort for this? It's about the
Is there a reference of some sort for this?
It's the case at
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF .
IMO it's not all that germane to warranty disclaimer, and I'm not buying the
chain of extrapolation that leads from this case to the conclusion that
click-wrap might be
On Saturday 03 August 2002 06:02 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
Maybe click-wrap creates more problems than it solves? We need to ask
the question rather than assuming the answer, as some would have us do.
If it will result in a divided rancorous community, dozens of new licenses
that no one
Bruce, are you going to respond to any of my other comments besides my
expression of bafflement? Or are you going to simply blame me for the
confusion and lack of legal understanding on the part of *some* of the
leaders of the open source community about whether licenses are
contracts? I invite
On Saturday 03 August 2002 09:25 am, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
What makes anyone think that this *CONTRACT* will be interpreted by the
courts strictly under copyright law?
There are several reasons, but I'll go into just one: there is a significant
number of laymen in the community that
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 12:17:10PM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Bruce, are you going to respond to any of my other comments besides my
expression of bafflement?
Sure, no problem.
Or are you going to simply blame me for the confusion and lack of legal
understanding on the part of *some*
I guess I am unsure of why there is such strong opposition to a clickwrap
licensing requirement. The Netscape-Smart-download case follows the
prevailing legal climate; namely, the licensor increases the risks of losing
a legal challenge to the license (either under the enforcement of a license
On Saturday 03 August 2002 01:11 pm, Rod Dixon wrote:
The Netscape-Smart-download case follows the
prevailing legal climate; namely, the licensor increases the risks of
losing a legal challenge to the license (either under the enforcement of a
license provision or the formation of the entire
Bruce Perens:
1. Is a simple warranty disclaimer that does not require agreement
adequate?
From: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do think the correct answer to the first question is going to
be yes. In response to question #1, I would ask another question:
aside from ease on the license
Your points have answered a couple of questions. If we look at this issue
narrowly, it makes sense to say that clickwrap should not be a mandatory
requirement of the OSD, but could be approved as appropriate for an open
source licensor. The point being that there is nothing extraordinary about
From: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it makes sense to say that clickwrap should not be a mandatory
requirement of the OSD, but could be approved as appropriate for an open
source licensor.
I'd better clear this up. There was no proposal for click-wrap to be a
a mandiatory requirement of the
David Johnson writes:
Click-thru threatens to overturn this fundamental tenet. Regardless of what
other effects it may have, it will severly damage the philosophical core of
Open Source.
I share your fear, and brought it to the board at the last meeting.
Allowing contractural licenses
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
The MPL (and almost all similar licenses), for example, contains a
patent grant that specifically applies to use and practice and it
disclaims application of those patents to the combination of the
Original Code with other software or devices.
But that, by
John Cowan writes:
Russell Nelson scripsit:
If you could put restrictions on modification, then BitKeeper is open
source.
The GPL puts modest restrictions on modification, at least of interactive
programs.
Indeed. One has to wonder whether the GPL should be an approved
18 matches
Mail list logo
