On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 21:33:51 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It seems that this license is actually doing two fundamentally
> distinct things: granting a license to people to do stuff, and making
> promises from the distributor/licensor. I think this combination is
> what makes it so confusing:
[...]
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:26:54PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> The FSF is well familiar with this. It's one of the many reasons (or excuses)
> why Daniel Bernstein refuses to release his software under a free license,
> since he says that free licenses claim to grant more rights than are actually
>
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:01:59AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> The GPL isn't a contract, everyone agrees on that. So how can the
> licensor be bound by it? If EvilCo buys the copyright of Alice's
> GPLed Hummity software, they can announce "No more GPL on Hummity" and then
> sue, say, Bob, who has
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
> He was given permission to do so, and nothing in that permission
> included a condition that the permission may be revoked at will.
The whole definition of "bare license" means a license that is unsupported
by consideration (i.e. not a contract):
A bare license
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:01:59AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Sorry, I don't follow this. How is enforcement involved here?
The example you gave showed a case where you've been promised something
and not given it, and you can't sue to get it. The copyright license case
is different, since there'
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
> You were previously talking about "contradicting the AFL", though. Are
> there actually any cases of this, or is it a practically null set?
Well, I can invent really stoopid licenses that do it, like this:
Alice licenses Yoyo under the AFL; Bob adds his changes, and lic
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
>> 4. Writing to debian-legal and asking for advice.
>
> Now that's a good idea. Why did you do that on debian-devel instead?
s/instead/, too/
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst.
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> 4. Writing to debian-legal and asking for advice.
Now that's a good idea. Why did you do that on debian-devel instead?
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- wi
Jonathan ILIAS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> It's all about causality. Consider two scenarios, both involving
>> three programs, A, B and C.
>> Scenario 1:
>> 1. A is written.
>> 2. B written, and makes use of A. You argue that B is a derivative
>> work of A.
>>
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It's all about causality. Consider two scenarios, both involving
three programs, A, B and C.
Scenario 1:
1. A is written.
2. B written, and makes use of A. You argue that B is a derivative
work of A.
3. C is written, and is compatible with A. B is clearly not a
10 matches
Mail list logo
