RE: im.py: a python communications tool
Neil Cerutti wrote: > On 2013-04-12, Mark Janssen wrote: > > Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system. > > Judges can be quite reasonable. They don't want more time > > taken for bullshit cases and would much prefer for things to be > > settled (that is what their duty is -- to settle matters, not > > to make lawyers wealthy). > > Wishful thinking is the wrong way to approach any legal matter. > He is not completely wishful (for USA). http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/11/u-s-judge-expresses-frustration-at-apples-and-googles-use-of-litigation-as-business-strategy/ Of course, not sure if the frustration will actually lead to an action or is just idle talk. ~Ramit This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses, confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers, available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RE: im.py: a python communications tool
Mark Janssen wrote: > >> It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no > >> expectation that you're getting anything at all! > > > > Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that > > she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives you > > a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of promise. > > If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather than a > > gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax. > > But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're > making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying > that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise. > If I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1 > (!) Theoretically isn't putting a piece of software "online" akin to publishing it? Following that logic, then there is the possibility of arguing an implicit promise that the software does what it is supposed to. Any bugs would be the responsibility of the developer. On a separate note, even if the judgment supports your view and the developer is never responsible for damages, will you still not be responsible for any court/lawyer fees? And getting those fees paid by suitor will likely be another court case. ~Ramit This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses, confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers, available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On 2013-04-12, Mark Janssen wrote: > Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system. > Judges can be quite reasonable. They don't want more time > taken for bullshit cases and would much prefer for things to be > settled (that is what their duty is -- to settle matters, not > to make lawyers wealthy). Wishful thinking is the wrong way to approach any legal matter. -- Neil Cerutti -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Prasad, Ramit wrote: > Mark Janssen wrote: >> But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're >> making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying >> that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise. >> If I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1 >> (!) > > Theoretically isn't putting a piece of software "online" akin to > publishing it? Following that logic, then there is the possibility > of arguing an implicit promise that the software does what it is > supposed to. Any bugs would be the responsibility of the developer. It is akin to publishing it. The law has not made a good distinction about responsibility in this area. But I'm telling you that unless money is exchanged THERE IS NO AGREEMENT MADE, implicit or otherwise. If there is no agreement, then another party can't blame you for something you didn't promise. Otherwise, I can blame you for insulting my fashion sense. > On a separate note, even if the judgment supports your view > and the developer is never responsible for damages, will you > still not be responsible for any court/lawyer fees? If someone brings you to court and fails to make their case, they've inconvenienced everyone. The fair thing would be for the court to require them to pay for your fees. >And > getting those fees paid by suitor will likely be another court case. Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system. Judges can be quite reasonable. They don't want more time taken for bullshit cases and would much prefer for things to be settled (that is what their duty is -- to settle matters, not to make lawyers wealthy). Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
> Are there that many people in the country who have no clue how the
> legal system works?
Gads. I'm trying to show you how the legal system *doesn't* work.
All your points may be valid under court history, but that history is
tainted. It doesn't mean the system is working, only that cases have
been decided. And the court should not be ruling on issues of such
accidents because guilt cannot established ("accidents" where there
was no intention of harm, nor tacit agreement made between any
parties) like a person giving a rose to their neighbor in an act of
good will. Such events should use mediators, not judges because their
is no *law* to be decided. The judges, or course, can act as
mediators, but the court system seems bogged down enough already.
I mean really, a good-will act? The Good Samaritan rules already
establish that you can't sue people for good faith acts. Do you
really want a world where *good intentions* are penalized? Come on --
that's why the system is broken and shame on every citizen that
continues this error in system of the People. It doesn't matter if
people get harmed, as long as good faith is in place before and after
the event. The "system" shouldn't get dragged in because you want to
act like a child and get your daddy to help you.
Mark
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On 09/04/2013 08:21, Chris Angelico wrote: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: In the case of free (libre) open source software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never promises anyone *anything*. If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started. It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no expectation that you're getting anything at all! Where does everyone come up with these bullshit ideas? And them let them stand as de facto law? Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust it to protect me. ChrisA The same place that he came up with this thread "Message passing syntax for objects" on Python ideas? What the BDFL thought of it here http://code.activestate.com/lists/python-ideas/20043/ -- If you're using GoogleCrap™ please read this http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython. Mark Lawrence -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On 2013-04-09, Mark Janssen wrote: Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust it to protect me. >>> >>> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you a >>> rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one? >> >> Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there >> is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will >> depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was >> disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm. > > What if my thumb gets pricked by a thorn on the rose? Let's see [In the US] 1) You've got to show that the prick was harmful enough to you that it merits legal remedy. 2) You've got to show that you had a reasonable expectation that roses didn't have thorns. 3) You've got to show that whoever gave you the rose should have forseen that would be harmed. 4) For extra bonus points, you try to show that whoever gave you the rose knew you would be harmed or indended to harm you. [In some areas of civil law, you can cash in your bonus points from step four for treble damages!] Are there that many people in the country who have no clue how the legal system works? -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! UH-OH!! I put on at "GREAT HEAD-ON TRAIN gmail.comCOLLISIONS of the 50's" by mistake!!! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On 2013-04-09, Mark Janssen wrote: >> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money >> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's >> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust >> it to protect me. > > I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you > a rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one? He might. To win, he'd first have to show standing: he'd have to prove that he was harmed (directly or indirectly by your action). > If no money changed hands? [As usual: IANAL so consule a real lawyer before giving away roses that don't smell like roses.] Doesn't matter. What matters first is harm. Once he establishes that he was harmed because the rose didn't smell, then the question of responsibility for that harm arises. Did you intend the harm? Did you forsee (or should have forseen) the harm? Did you warn him about the possibility of harm or take any other actions to prevent forseeable harm? > I don't have to cite anything! This is argument of the absurd and > should be inadmissible. Absurdity has nothing to with it, we're talking about the law. :) -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! But they went to MARS at around 1953!! gmail.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:40:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of >> animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no >> all-seeing-eye. > > It must be counterfeit! > > Send it to me, I'll dispose of it safely. Ahh, you studied counterfeit-recognition under the tutelage of Dennis Bloodnok, I see. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 02:29:43 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote: > Well, out here in the good ol' USA, there no "duty of care" That explains a lot. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:40:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen > wrote: >> If you want tin foil hats, though, >> you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you already >> have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted. Egyptian >> pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye? > > I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of > animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no > all-seeing-eye. It must be counterfeit! Send it to me, I'll dispose of it safely. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
I just put out a new version of im.py on GitHub. You can find it here: https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/im.py -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen > wrote: >> If you want tin foil hats, though, >> you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you >> already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted. >> Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye? > > I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of > animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no > all-seeing-eye. Please pardon the implicit Americanism, I didn't disclaim my speech because I think all G8-20? countries are somewhat accountable for basing their currency or referencing their currency upon it (is this true from European views?). In any case, trading with America, they entangle themselves with its history -- including the Native American near-genocide that happened here and the human rights abuses that continue to this day. Is it not strange that no one notices this while the talking heads on TV go on about human rights in some far-away land that they hardly know? Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen >> wrote: >>> If you want tin foil hats, though, >>> you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you >>> already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted. >>> Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye? >> >> I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of >> animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no >> all-seeing-eye. > > Please pardon the implicit Americanism, I didn't disclaim my speech > because I think all G8-20? countries are somewhat accountable for > basing their currency or referencing their currency upon it (is this > true from European views?). In any case, trading with America, they > entangle themselves with its history -- including the Native American > near-genocide that happened here and the human rights abuses that > continue to this day. Is it not strange that no one notices this > while the talking heads on TV go on about human rights in some > far-away land that they hardly know? Okay. I've read your post. Read it again. Rubbed my eyes in case there was something in them and gone back for another read. And I can't conjure any response but this: Wut? ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: > If you want tin foil hats, though, > you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you > already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted. > Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye? I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no all-seeing-eye. ChrisA (And yeah, a mob of animals. You'll either know or not know why it's a mob.) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
> Lots of obvious generalizations out there which are wrong, at least some of > the time. You know, Dave funny thing is, right there is one of them. -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
> And by putting it online for free download, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT > DISCLAIMER, you are implying that it is fit for its purpose, and that you > have a duty of care to make sure that it does do what you say it does. No, there is no requirement for a disclaimer. In the US, what is not explicitly restricted by the law is withheld by the citizen. I don't have to give a disclaimer if my intentions are in good faith. And further, I'm not saying that it's fit for a purpose in some trade-like agreement. So I'm not in possible breach of any agreement whatsoever. > If you go into a restaurant, and they have bowls of breadsticks free for > people to eat, and you eat one, and it had a needle in it and you stabbed > yourself and got infected, don't you think that the restaurant ought to > take responsibility for their carelessness? If I go to a freebiebox placed outside a restaurant with such, no, I'm taking responsibility. "Caveat emptor" as they say and here's there's no buyer. If I go to a table and there are free breadstix on the table and start eating them without intentions to pay, then I'm the shithole. If I get infected from some food at a restaurant which I paid for, then each side will have to argue their case. The court may find negligence on the side of the restaurant, or it may not. > Don't you think that it is > pretty shitty, weaselly behaviour for them to say "But you didn't pay for > the breadstick! We never promised that it wouldn't contain an AIDS- > infected needle!" Hey, you know it's expected that if someone gets hurt from something you provided, but you didnt' intend it on them and didn't make any money off of them, that you still say you're sorry. Each person in a government of the people is expected to do their fair part in using commonsense. The courts can't deal with every little squabble. > The principle is the same. There is an implied warranty that a breadstick > will not contain infected needles, and that software will do what you say > it does. No to the latter. As for the former, if I'm at a restaurant I'm entering a business relationship. The cost of the breadsticks are already bundled in the other food you are *expected* to order. > WARNING: Breadsticks in this restaurant may contain infected needles. > Eat at your own risk! Here again your letting the Novus Ordo "market mentality" dominate your thinking when it should be on about person-to-person simple interactions. Unless of course, you've allowed corporations to be people, and your in a corporate restaurant, please no. >> Okay, if the TV show disconnected the brake lines, there could be >> argument of criminal negligence on her production, but otherwise the car >> company could be sued. You don't sue Oprah because she's not the one >> who designed it. > > That will surely depend on the jurisdiction. Some places may reason that > your relationship was with Oprah (to be precise, her production company > that actually gave you the car), that she had a duty of care, and so it > is her that you should sue. It is then Oprah's responsibility to sue the > manufacturer. Well, out here in the good ol' USA, there no "duty of care", because you're not a child being taken care of and Oprah is not someone acting "in loco parentis". The 14th(?) amendment give equal treatment under the law, there's no duty of care unless you can argue that it's expected of your adult ass getting on TV. MarkJ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On 04/09/2013 05:00 AM, Mark Janssen wrote: By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race or something. You wouldn't go to a lawyer for advice on the best way to program. You wouldn't go to a car mechanic to ask for the best way to set a broken leg. You wouldn't go to a professional gardener to ask how to fight a land war in Asia. Yeah and a programmer wouldn't go to a lawyer to GIVE SOMETHING AWAY FOR FREE! I mean I couldn't brainwash this kind of common sense into a person. And the same thinking would say that there's no need to ever change the oil in a car, just add more when the dipstick gets too low. And no need to kill the weeds in a lawn, just keep spreading more grass seed. And no need to call a plumber for a leak, just wrap it in lots of duct tape. And no need for liability insurance for your house, as nobody's gotten hurt yet. And no need to hire a programmer for a payroll program, just let Jimmy the receptionist write it in his spare time. I recently talked to a small business entrepreneur who thought she didn't have to charge or file sales tax, because her business was still small. Her accountant told her that was fine. I told her to ask a lawyer. Lots of obvious generalizations out there which are wrong, at least some of the time. -- DaveA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:02:14 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote: >>> It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's >>> no expectation that you're getting anything at all! >> >> Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that >> she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives >> you a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of >> promise. If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather >> than a gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax. > > But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're > making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying > that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise. If > I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1 (!) And by putting it online for free download, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT DISCLAIMER, you are implying that it is fit for its purpose, and that you have a duty of care to make sure that it does do what you say it does. If you go into a restaurant, and they have bowls of breadsticks free for people to eat, and you eat one, and it had a needle in it and you stabbed yourself and got infected, don't you think that the restaurant ought to take responsibility for their carelessness? Don't you think that it is pretty shitty, weaselly behaviour for them to say "But you didn't pay for the breadstick! We never promised that it wouldn't contain an AIDS- infected needle!" The principle is the same. There is an implied warranty that a breadstick will not contain infected needles, and that software will do what you say it does. If it doesn't, and people are harmed by that, then you ought to live up to your responsibility. Or, *you warn them ahead of time* that you take no responsibility, with an explicit warranty disclaimer. WARNING: Breadsticks in this restaurant may contain infected needles. Eat at your own risk! > Number 2, you used Oprah, a public figure, to make you're argument. The fact that she's a public figure is irrelevant. [...] >> And if she gives you a car, only the brake lines have been disconnected >> and you're seriously injured the first time you drive it, you also have >> standing to sue that she gave you a car that was unfit for the purpose >> it was designed. > > Okay, if the TV show disconnected the brake lines, there could be > argument of criminal negligence on her production, but otherwise the car > company could be sued. You don't sue Oprah because she's not the one > who designed it. That will surely depend on the jurisdiction. Some places may reason that your relationship was with Oprah (to be precise, her production company that actually gave you the car), that she had a duty of care, and so it is her that you should sue. It is then Oprah's responsibility to sue the manufacturer. Other places might decide that Oprah's company had no duty of care to ensure that the car was in a fit state, and responsibility was entirely on the car manufacturer. Some places might reason that you can sue both, and it is up to the court to decide what percentage of responsibility each party must take. Which case it is will depend on the laws of whichever place has legal jurisdiction. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
>>> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money >>> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's >>> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust >>> it to protect me. >> >> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you a >> rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one? > > Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there > is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will > depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was > disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm. What if my thumb gets pricked by a thorn on the rose? Let's see > There is, however, an implied promise that the rose is safe. > I love a good fantasy as much as the next guy, but I live in reality. Okay. > In > reality, people do have the expectation that products are fit for their > purpose, and if they don't, some percentage of them will attempt to sue. To the extent that Free Software isn't sold, it's not a product. To the extent that the software is taken at the effort of the user, rather than *given* by the programmer, there is no purpose -- neither explicitly or *implicitly* implied. Just like if I were to pick off a teddybear on a table sitting on a curb with a sign that says "free". Ask yourself, tin-foil-hatless man, why don't you suggest a sign that says "take at your own risk, no warranty implied"? Because you don't want to make a society that is that stupid about things, that's why. Now stop pandering to the bar association. You've accepted the market mentality and applied it to our world of free and open source software. It's supposed to be about community and having fun. > For the sake of an extra dozen or so lines giving an explicit disclaimer, > you can protect yourself from all but the most ignorant or malicious > plaintiffs. That might be, but if you include such a wily lawyer could suggest that by the very act of including a legal disclaimer you're moved yourself into a contract negotiation and are expected to be more strict in your terms. > Why would anyone rely on *wishful thinking* instead of a short, proven, > effective legal licence? I told you above. I don't want a world like you're suggesting where people can't just say "you can do what you want with this software", but should be lawyers instead. >> Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit. > > You've dropped your tinfoil hat. Watch out, the CIA will start beaming > thoughts into your head. I know. It got you didn't it. But you'll note that Latin is also used as a language of the court. If you want tin foil hats, though, you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted. Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye? It's you who have the burden of explanation brother, because it doesn't make any sense without going to outer space. Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
>> By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This >> notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race or >> something. > > You wouldn't go to a lawyer for advice on the best way to program. You > wouldn't go to a car mechanic to ask for the best way to set a broken > leg. You wouldn't go to a professional gardener to ask how to fight a > land war in Asia. Yeah and a programmer wouldn't go to a lawyer to GIVE SOMETHING AWAY FOR FREE! I mean I couldn't brainwash this kind of common sense into a person. Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:15:04 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote: >> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. > > By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This > notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race or > something. You wouldn't go to a lawyer for advice on the best way to program. You wouldn't go to a car mechanic to ask for the best way to set a broken leg. You wouldn't go to a professional gardener to ask how to fight a land war in Asia. Sure, Mike the Personal Injury Lawyer happens to also be a hotshot programmer with 35 years of experience in C, Fortran, Lisp, Python, Perl, Java, Ruby, PHP, Smalltalk and Haskell. Good for him, and if you know him, then maybe you would ask him programming questions in preference to a lot of programmers. But that's Mike. 99% of lawyers have no idea about the difference between a hash table and a linked list, and 30% think that cloud computing has something to do with real clouds. Dave might be an awesome car mechanic who can fix anything with an engine, but that doesn't mean he knows shit about what sort of licence and warranty disclaimer is best. It's just damn common sense that, when faced with a legal issue, you ask a legal expert, not a programmer or a butcher or a candle-stick maker. http://demotivationalblog.com/demotivational/2010/03/common-sense.jpg -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:39:21 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote: >> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money >> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's >> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust >> it to protect me. > > I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you a > rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one? Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm. Is there an implied promise that the rose I gave you will have a scent? I don't think so, there are many roses that don't have a scent. There is, however, an implied promise that the rose is safe. If I lace the rose with a toxic chemical, and you get sick after handling it, you probably could sue me even if the rose was a free gift. And so you should -- if I am stupid, careless or malicious enough to hand out toxic products that cause harm, I ought to take responsibility for my actions. If I won't take responsibility, then the law enforcement and legal systems ought to force me to take responsibility. > If no money > changed hands? I don't have to cite anything! This is argument of the > absurd and should be inadmissible. I love a good fantasy as much as the next guy, but I live in reality. In reality, people do have the expectation that products are fit for their purpose, and if they don't, some percentage of them will attempt to sue. For the sake of an extra dozen or so lines giving an explicit disclaimer, you can protect yourself from all but the most ignorant or malicious plaintiffs. Why would anyone rely on *wishful thinking* instead of a short, proven, effective legal licence? > Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit. You've dropped your tinfoil hat. Watch out, the CIA will start beaming thoughts into your head. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race or something. Lawyers are people, that have been trained into a historical system of conventions. That doesn't necessarily make them good counselors, and conversely non-lawyers can be better defenders than "lawyers". As long as this (US) is a constitutional republic, it is of, by and for, the people. There is legally no grounds to deprive a citizen of a fair trial even if they don't have lawyer. The Establishment has been intimidating people for too long. I'm just calling it out, so my crowd (can I call it that?) doesn't give away it's power. Mark. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
>> It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no >> expectation that you're getting anything at all! > > Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that > she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives you > a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of promise. > If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather than a > gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax. But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise. If I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1 (!) Number 2, you used Oprah, a public figure, to make you're argument. Legally, the issue is not so much that she's a public figure, but that she's making a *published* claim. It could be Joe Blow posting a notice around town making the claim. Now such claims don't have much legal standing, because a lawyer could argue that Joe Blow is a nut job and such offers can't be trusted. If you want grounds for breach of a promise you better get it in writing and counter-signed. > And if she gives you a car, only the brake lines have been disconnected > and you're seriously injured the first time you drive it, you also have > standing to sue that she gave you a car that was unfit for the purpose it > was designed. Okay, if the TV show disconnected the brake lines, there could be argument of criminal negligence on her production, but otherwise the car company could be sued. You don't sue Oprah because she's not the one who designed it. Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money > didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's > true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust > it to protect me. I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you a rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one? If no money changed hands? I don't have to cite anything! This is argument of the absurd and should be inadmissible. Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit. Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:20:27 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Chris Angelico > wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen >> wrote: >>> In the case of free (libre) open source software, such a case would >>> have no merit, because such software never promises anyone *anything*. >> >> If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says >> so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those >> licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started. > > It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no > expectation that you're getting anything at all! Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives you a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of promise. If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather than a gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax. http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/22/news/newsmakers/oprah_car_tax/index.htm And if she gives you a car, only the brake lines have been disconnected and you're seriously injured the first time you drive it, you also have standing to sue that she gave you a car that was unfit for the purpose it was designed. > Where does everyone > come up with these bullshit ideas? I've been wondering exactly the same thing... -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen >> wrote: >>> In the case of free (libre) open source >>> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never >>> promises anyone *anything*. >> >> If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says >> so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those >> licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started. > > It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's > no expectation that you're getting anything at all! Where does > everyone come up with these bullshit ideas? And them let them stand > as de facto law? Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust it to protect me. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen > wrote: >> In the case of free (libre) open source >> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never >> promises anyone *anything*. > > If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says > so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those > licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started. It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no expectation that you're getting anything at all! Where does everyone come up with these bullshit ideas? And them let them stand as de facto law? Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: > In the case of free (libre) open source > software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never > promises anyone *anything*. If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:20:54 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote: >> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs >> up my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes >> crashing to the ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not >> having a warning sign. > > No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit > which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution. Which Constitution is that? The Russian Constitution? Italian? Japanese? Brazilian? New Zealand? Serbian? South African? > By > propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims to > our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our own > negligence, and frankly, pessimism. > > This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of the > Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the land. Speak for yourself. Not everyone here is a Yankie. > People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to continually > be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being propagated > earlier. We're not victims here. The story of a burglar suing a > homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, Maybe, maybe not, but it's irrelevant. We're not talking about somebody breaking into your home to steal your DVD, and on the way in, being injured by your software. We're talking about somebody using your software, *with your explicit permission*, and then having it cause them harm by being unfit for the purpose advertised. If you don't disclaim warranty, and even sometimes if you do, there is an implicit warranty that your goods will be fit for their purpose in many jurisdictions. In some places that may only apply if money changes hands; in other places it will apply regardless. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On 04/09/2013 02:20 AM, Mark Janssen wrote: I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs up my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing to the ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a warning sign. No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution. By propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our own negligence, and frankly, pessimism. I like to be pessimistic when signing the documents that might ruin my own future. In my last job, I told the company lawyers I would not accept the NDA as they supplied it, and they claimed I was the first one to successfully force a new version. As HR put it, most people don't even read it, they figure it's a requirement to work. This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the land. People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being propagated earlier. We're not victims here. The story of a burglar suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default somewhere in the judicial system. It should not be considered case history or "de facto" law and left at that. If a hospital takes your open source code and someone dies, the hospital must be No, *should* *be* held responsible, because the open source developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement. (re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer. Like the sheriff says: "I make the law around here!" lol. I can't really argue your points, and once a challenge is made, I'm thoroughly in agreement. But it's much easier to keep things clear from the beginning, and I've been assuming our job here was to advise the OP on whether his plan for a license agreement is good. Years ago I managed to get our company lawyers to approve the use of "free" software for internal use, but getting the custom license agreement past them was like pulling teeth. -- DaveA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
We're /definitely/ on topic for this list. Just saying. On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: >> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs up >> my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing to the >> ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a warning sign. > > No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit > which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution. By > propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims > to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our > own negligence, and frankly, pessimism. > > This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of > the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the > land. People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to > continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being > propagated earlier. We're not victims here. The story of a burglar > suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default > somewhere in the judicial system. It should not be considered case > history or "de facto" law and left at that. > >>> If a hospital takes your open source code and someone >>> dies, the hospital must be >> >> No, *should* *be* >> >>> held responsible, because the open source >>> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it >>> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement. > > (re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from > the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer. Like the sheriff > says: "I make the law around here!" lol. > > Mark > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- Demian Brecht http://demianbrecht.github.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs up > my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing to the > ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a warning sign. No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution. By propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our own negligence, and frankly, pessimism. This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the land. People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being propagated earlier. We're not victims here. The story of a burglar suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default somewhere in the judicial system. It should not be considered case history or "de facto" law and left at that. >> If a hospital takes your open source code and someone >> dies, the hospital must be > > No, *should* *be* > >> held responsible, because the open source >> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it >> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement. (re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer. Like the sheriff says: "I make the law around here!" lol. Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On 04/08/2013 11:37 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Dave Angel wrote: On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote: Actually, my current licence can be found here: https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think about this, Useneters? I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently means that you are responsible for the performance of your software. Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because they never entered into an agreement, not did you. That's a common misconception. No prior agreement is necessary to institute a lawsuit, at least in the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the likelihood that a lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee that a lawsuit cannot be filed and prosecuted. Clearly anyone can file a lawsuit, I could file one against you for offending me, for example. The issue I was poorly raising is whether such a case would have merit. In the case of free (libre) open source software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never promises anyone *anything*. I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs up my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing to the ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a warning sign. Especially if "I" am a company. And especially if I have an "attractive nuisance" around. There are lots of implied agreements that have been successfully used by the opposing lawyers. But someone would have to make the case and "train" the court. The court simply has not become appraised of what free, libre, open source software is. Now you're assuming that there is such a definition, and that the court could be convinced to follow your interpretation. I claim that no amateur should try to word his own agreement. Either get an expert to help, or refer to an agreement that was prepared by such experts. Don't make the assumption that because something is free, it's somehow immune from liability. I expect it's safer to have no agreement at all, than to have one that gives away privileges without explicitly declaring or disclaiming any responsibilities. Really, one shouldn't be so afraid of such things and intimidated of our own system of law -- this is why the republic has degraded to lawyers, not representatives of the People. If a hospital takes your open source code and someone dies, the hospital must be No, *should* *be* held responsible, because the open source developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement. Mark -- DaveA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Dave Angel wrote: > On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote: >>> Actually, my current licence can be found here: https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think about this, Useneters? >>> >>> >>> >>> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your >>> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently >>> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software. >> >> >> Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because >> they never entered into an agreement, not did you. >> > > That's a common misconception. No prior agreement is necessary to institute > a lawsuit, at least in the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been > advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the likelihood that a > lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee that a lawsuit cannot > be filed and prosecuted. Clearly anyone can file a lawsuit, I could file one against you for offending me, for example. The issue I was poorly raising is whether such a case would have merit. In the case of free (libre) open source software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never promises anyone *anything*. But someone would have to make the case and "train" the court. The court simply has not become appraised of what free, libre, open source software is. Really, one shouldn't be so afraid of such things and intimidated of our own system of law -- this is why the republic has degraded to lawyers, not representatives of the People. If a hospital takes your open source code and someone dies, the hospital must be held responsible, because the open source developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement. Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote: Actually, my current licence can be found here: https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think about this, Useneters? I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently means that you are responsible for the performance of your software. Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because they never entered into an agreement, not did you. That's a common misconception. No prior agreement is necessary to institute a lawsuit, at least in the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the likelihood that a lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee that a lawsuit cannot be filed and prosecuted. Besides, an open-ended license might be acted on anywhere in the world, and who knows what some other jurisdictions might permit/require. -- DaveA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote: > >> Actually, my current licence can be found here: >> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think >> about this, Useneters? > > > I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your > software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently > means that you are responsible for the performance of your software. Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because they never entered into an agreement, not did you. Mark Janssen Tacoma, Washington. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Apr 7, 6:36 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote: > > Actually, my current licence can be found here: > >https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think > > about this, Useneters? > > I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your > software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently > means that you are responsible for the performance of your software. > > Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the > MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner? > > E.g.http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT > > Software licencing is a solved problem. Do you really think that people > write three or four paragraph licences because they *like* legal > boilerplate? Did you imagine that you were the first person to think, "I > know! I'll write a one-liner telling people they can do whatever they > want with my software! Nothing can possibly go wrong!"? > > Use a known, tested, working solution, and save yourself the pain. > > -- > Steven MIT is actually the best one I've seen so far. I'm updating LICENCE. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote: > >> Actually, my current licence can be found here: >> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think >> about this, Useneters? > > > I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your > software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently > means that you are responsible for the performance of your software. > > Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the > MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner? > > E.g. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Plus there's the whole brevity thing. If I see something that says "MIT license", I don't need to read the details. Compare the README for one of my projects: https://github.com/Rosuav/Gypsum/blob/master/README (Actually, I need to update that; there are a few solved problems listed there as still open.) You read "Licensed under the BSD Open Source license" and then you can stop reading - you know what your rights are. The lawyers at Roy Smith's company would have no trouble comprehending this, and no trouble deciding whether or not it's allowed - they either do or do not (there is no try). License proliferation is actually a major problem. If I were to lift code from your program and incorporate it into something GPL3, am I violating either's terms? What if I want to put that code into something BSD 2-clause? Am I allowed? At least if you use a well-known license, I can do a quick web search, coming up with something like [1], but a custom or unusual license would require careful analysis of terms. [1] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote: > Actually, my current licence can be found here: > https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think > about this, Useneters? I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently means that you are responsible for the performance of your software. Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner? E.g. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Software licencing is a solved problem. Do you really think that people write three or four paragraph licences because they *like* legal boilerplate? Did you imagine that you were the first person to think, "I know! I'll write a one-liner telling people they can do whatever they want with my software! Nothing can possibly go wrong!"? Use a known, tested, working solution, and save yourself the pain. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:59:10 AM UTC-4, garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote: > Andrew Berg wrote: > > > On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote: > > >> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own > > >> licenses. > > > Perhaps he meant this existing license: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ > > > > I like the Python Powered Logo license by Just van Rossum (Guido's > > brother, in case someone doesn't know..) > > > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/1999-December/013413.html > > > > -- > > --- > > | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | > > | __..--^^^--..__garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | > > --- > > Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. > > Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread! Actually, my current licence can be found here: https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think about this, Useneters? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
Andrew Berg wrote: > On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote: >> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own >> licenses. > Perhaps he meant this existing license: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ I like the Python Powered Logo license by Just van Rossum (Guido's brother, in case someone doesn't know..) http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/1999-December/013413.html -- --- | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | --- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Apr 5, 8:52 pm, Demian Brecht wrote: > Thanks for sharing some of your work with the community. However... > > Speaking to the sharing aspect: Why would you post a block of code in an > email? If you're looking for people to contribute, it would likely be a > much better idea to post it on github (which was built for collaborative > work). > > As for the code itself, if you /know/ it sucks and are advertising it as > such, you're not really enticing people to work on it. In its current > state, it looks like a non-extensible prototype, just poking around to see > how you can achieve a p2p connectivity, without doing /any/ research > (supporting modules, etc) or design before just starting to throw something > together. > > I'd venture to say that the chances of actually getting anyone to > contribute to this in its current state (especially purely over a mailing > list) would be slim to none. People generally tend to want to see that > there's actually effort and thought put into something before they put > /their/ own time into it. Jeez, harsh. I __am__ putting this on github, and I __am__ coming back to this program and working on it now. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Apr 5, 9:26 pm, Andrew Berg wrote: > On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote:> I know this is off-topic, but I > encourage people to NOT invent their own > > licenses. > > Perhaps he meant this existing license:http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ > -- > CPython 3.3.0 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1 Yep. As a matter of fact, I did. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote: > I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own > licenses. Perhaps he meant this existing license: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ -- CPython 3.3.0 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Roy Smith wrote: > In article > , > Jake D wrote: > >> What is the licence? >> --It's released under a special FOSS licence. Here it is: >> You can do whatever you want with this program. > > I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own > licenses. Take your pick of any of the well-known (Berkeley, MIT, GPL, > etc) licenses, and use that. [...] That all being said, and excellent policy and commentary in general, no one should have trouble interpreting "do whatever you want with it", legally or otherwise. Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
In article , Jake D wrote: > What is the licence? > --It's released under a special FOSS licence. Here it is: > You can do whatever you want with this program. I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own licenses. Take your pick of any of the well-known (Berkeley, MIT, GPL, etc) licenses, and use that. I used to work for a very large corporation. The legal department was (quite reasonably) concerned about use of FOSS, and all open source software we used needed to pass legal review. They were looking for two things. First, that the license didn't obligate the company to anything it didn't want to be obligated to (i.e. they wouldn't allow GPL3). Second, that YOU understood the terms of the license and had a plan in place to comply with all the requirements. The lawyers knew all the major licenses. If you showed up with something that was known (and acceptable) to them, the process was quick and (relatively) painless. If you showed up with some license they had no experience with, they would go off into a huddle and not come out until they were sure they understood it. The usual result was that anything that came with a one-off license was probably more trouble to get approved than it was worth. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: im.py: a python communications tool
Thanks for sharing some of your work with the community. However... Speaking to the sharing aspect: Why would you post a block of code in an email? If you're looking for people to contribute, it would likely be a much better idea to post it on github (which was built for collaborative work). As for the code itself, if you /know/ it sucks and are advertising it as such, you're not really enticing people to work on it. In its current state, it looks like a non-extensible prototype, just poking around to see how you can achieve a p2p connectivity, without doing /any/ research (supporting modules, etc) or design before just starting to throw something together. I'd venture to say that the chances of actually getting anyone to contribute to this in its current state (especially purely over a mailing list) would be slim to none. People generally tend to want to see that there's actually effort and thought put into something before they put /their/ own time into it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
