Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread Guido van Rossum
> Guido van Rossum writes: > > Ask your own lawyer. John Hasler: > We don't have one. We cannot afford to pay attorneys, and they evidently > do not consider free software projects worthy of their pro bono efforts. > > > I really can't tell what harm there is here. > > The license clearly grant

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread John Hasler
Guido van Rossum writes: > Ask your own lawyer. We don't have one. We cannot afford to pay attorneys, and they evidently do not consider free software projects worthy of their pro bono efforts. > I really can't tell what harm there is here. The license clearly grants the right to redistribute t

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread Guido van Rossum
> > > What about buying a Debian cdrom, or borrowing one, or getting a copy > > > from someone on a floppy disk? > > > > Ask your own lawyer. I really can't tell what harm there is here. > > Everyone else seems to find the licence acceptable if a bit tedious to > > read -- I'm the first to admit

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread Gregor Hoffleit
> > > What about buying a Debian cdrom, or borrowing one, or getting a copy > > from someone on a floppy disk? > > Ask your own lawyer. I really can't tell what harm there is here. > Everyone else seems to find the licence acceptable if a bit tedious to > read -- I'm the first to admit the latt

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread Guido van Rossum
> What about buying a Debian cdrom, or borrowing one, or getting a copy > from someone on a floppy disk? Ask your own lawyer. I really can't tell what harm there is here. Everyone else seems to find the licence acceptable if a bit tedious to read -- I'm the first to admit the latter but I am una

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread Henning Makholm
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Does this mean that one has to actively "request release" (contact > > CNRI in some way?) before one is a "Licensee" by this definition? > Yes -- but the requesting of the release happens by downloading the > software ;-) What about buying a Debia

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread Guido van Rossum
> I replied to the list and later realized that you probably do not > subscribe to it. So here is a courtesy copy. :-) Indeed. I didn't see your message in the list archives either. > Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1. This CNRI LICENSE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") by and betw

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread John Hasler
Gregor Hoffleit writes: > Can I summarize this as follows: The license looks DFSG-free and > therefore ok for us apart from (4). Yes. > (7) sounds a little bit obfuscated, but in the end it only says something > like "if you breach this license, we will try to tell you to stop > breaching, and if

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread Guido van Rossum
Thanks for the comments so far. I'll present what I have to CNRI's management. I think some of the suggestions about what to do with the OROmatcher license are implementable. > The bits about "pressing the button" etc. don't make sense in the license > document that accompies the source distri

Re: Netscape and Mozilla public licenses to be updated

1999-02-01 Thread Raul Miller
> > news://news.mozilla.org/36AF89D1.7C95097B%40netscape.com Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The URL didn't work... Subject: planned updates to the Netscape and Mozilla Public Licenses Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:49:05 -0800 From: Jim Hamerly <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: "Public Domain"

1999-02-01 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Saturday 30 January 1999, at 21 h 20, the keyboard of Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've always understood that placing a (formerly/potentially) copyrighted > work "in the public domain" is a statement by the author that they are > giving up all copyright rights (if that's the c

Re: Netscape and Mozilla public licenses to be updated

1999-02-01 Thread Joseph Carter
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 08:59:27AM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote: > As found on Linux Today: > news://news.mozilla.org/36AF89D1.7C95097B%40netscape.com The URL didn't work... -- Anticipation is the sweetest form of torture...

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread Gregor Hoffleit
[I'd suggest cc'ing Guido in replies in this thread to (that's as I think he's not subscribed to the list ? Guido, the thread is archived as http://www.de.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-9901/msg00211.html] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) wrote: > Guido van Rossum writes: > > A note on cla

Netscape and Mozilla public licenses to be updated

1999-02-01 Thread J.H.M. Dassen
As found on Linux Today: news://news.mozilla.org/36AF89D1.7C95097B%40netscape.com Ray -- Obsig: developing a new sig

Re: Proposed Grail and JPython Licenses

1999-02-01 Thread John Hasler
Henning Makholm writes: > Does this mean that one has to actively "request release" (contact > CNRI in some way?) before one is a "Licensee" by this definition? I don't think so. I think that if they put the package up on their web site and say to the world "Have at it!" that the law would deem a