David Johnson wrote:
As long as I obey the law with regards to copyright, then it is
impossible
for me to violate the GPL. Thus I am safe in not agreeing to it.
That means that you never download the software
from a distribution site, or copy it off borrowed media,
and never redistribute
On Monday 19 November 2001 05:05 am, David Woolley wrote:
David Johnson wrote:
As long as I obey the law with regards to copyright, then it is
impossible
for me to violate the GPL. Thus I am safe in not agreeing to it.
That means that you never download the software
from a
On Saturday 17 November 2001 05:59 pm, John Cowan wrote:
As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
contract of adhesion (one-sided) as a Microsoft EULA.
A menu at a restaurant clearly lays out the terms of the contract: a
particular price in exchange for a
David Johnson scripsit:
A menu at a restaurant clearly lays out the terms of the contract: a
particular price in exchange for a particular item. The fact that you pay fo
the item after you have used it does not make it very much different from any
other commercial transaction.
Not my
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:59:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
contract of adhesion (one-sided) as a Microsoft EULA.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 06:45:54PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
David Johnson scripsit:
A menu at a
Sorry about that. I accidently sent the message while it was incomplete...
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 06:04:47PM -0800, Chris D. Sloan wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:59:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
contract of
David Johnson scripsit:
The current
legal climate that allows licenses to unilaterally declare that an agreement
is in place is anti-civilization.
*shrug*
As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
contract of adhesion (one-sided) as a Microsoft EULA.
--
that?
Noel
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:50 PM
To: John Cowan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD compliant shareware
On Thursday 15 November 2001 07:15 am, John Cowan wrote:
Just because some license declares
Humphreys, Noel wrote:
David Johnson wrote:
In the case of the GPL, and most other OSS licenses, I can
completely ignore the license, place a full page ad in the NYT
saying I Disagree, get an official judicial decree that I have
not agreed, and STILL be able to use the software
Not at all. Note the term use the software; copyright law
doesn't limit uses (except for DCMA). Developers think of
using software, especially libraries, as incorporating it
into their own works, but that is not the kind of use
meant here.
Isn't it that the GPL covers mainly
: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 2:47 PM
To: Humphreys, Noel
Cc: 'David Johnson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD compliant shareware
Humphreys, Noel wrote:
David Johnson wrote:
In the case of the GPL, and most other OSS licenses, I can
completely
On Friday 16 November 2001 07:04 am, Humphreys, Noel wrote:
David, you're saying that, fundamentally, open-source licensing simply
doesn't work under US law. I don't understand why you think that you can
get a judge to declare that you may simply disregard the license. Would
you please
David Johnson wrote:
If I have not agreed to a license then I have not agreed to the license.
True enough, but assent can be inferred from actions; it need not be
verbal or explicit. The act of ordering food in a restaurant is assent
to a contract which obliges you to pay for it.
IANAL,
On Thursday 15 November 2001 07:15 am, John Cowan wrote:
Just because some license declares that I have agreed to it does
not make it so.
In the case of the GPL, it says If you agree to these rules, you may do
these things. If you don't agree, you are not bound, but you can't do
them
Bruce Perens scripsit:
I haven't read the decision in MAI vs Peak,
In brief: it said that a computer maintenance company (neither owner nor licensee)
couldn't run proprietary OS software, already installed, for hardware testing
purposes, because that involved making copies; the 117 safe harbor
* Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04 05:33]:
It's been pointed out that:
1. The OSD is not written in statutory language.
2. That it says what you _can't_ do rather than what you can and thus makes
it easy to find loopholes, because there is an unbounded set of activities
that it
Samuel Reynolds wrote:
In general, the right to *use* the work is implied by
ownership of a copy of the work, and limited to the
copy of the work that one owns.
Right enough.
For example, paintings
(with a very few, contractually-obligated exceptions)
can be displayed publically or
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: OSD compliant shareware
Samuel Reynolds wrote:
In general, the right to *use* the work is implied by
ownership of a copy of the work, and limited
Okay. But my point was that the copyright holder can grant
portions of his rights under copyright without obtaining
the signature of the recipient(s), while usage rights require
a contract.
Do you think the GPL creates a contract?
--
license-discuss archive is at
Message-
From: Samuel Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OSD compliant shareware
-Original Message-
From: Forrest J Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:52 AM
Forrest J. Cavalier III writes:
2. You may compile this into an executable form, or modify your
copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming
a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
On Wednesday 14 November 2001 12:06 pm, Humphreys, Noel wrote:
Signatures are not always necessary for formation of contracts. Software
license arrangements fit comfortably within normal contract analysis
patterns, and courts treat them that way. It's a mistake to think courts
would not
not qualify
as owners of the software and are not eligible for protection under
117.
This means the copying of the program into RAM is governed by the terms
of the license.
I have written what I think is an OSD compliant shareware license
(below), and some on the license-discuss
23 matches
Mail list logo
