Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> > Could you explain why D
stamen
Great Investment Newsletter, Get APWL . Pk!
APWL Is A Gold Mine - It's Ready To Explode.
This is Our Hot Pick This Week, It Can Easily
Go Up to 2.25 Very Fast Here Is The Latest News
Below. Don't Miss Out On This One Get It Asap
For Big Pr0fits Like Our Other Picks which
return 300 to 7
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in
> | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer
> | software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such
> | terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Se
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying
> with for a slightly more (informally) directed approach to license
> analysis, that should prove harder to derail with long pointless
> tangents and more immune to revisionism by t
On Friday 09 September 2005 01:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> >
> > Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:44:23AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)
> >Version 1.0
> > * 1. Definitions.
> >[...] o 1.13. "You" (or "Your") means an
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> | The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in
>> | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer
>> I have managed to find out what "C.F.R." means and to loc
Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a f
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> > it's up to you explaining why.
> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
I am re
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:46:04AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> > > it's up to you explaining why.
> > Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. Ho
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it
>> seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto.
>
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> at the the author
Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:
>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
>> discrimina
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Henning Makholm writes:
>>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
>>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>>> can be m
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 9. MISCELLANEOUS.
> Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
> shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.
Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a juri
Henning Makholm writes:
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
> the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" can be
> meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be discriminated
> against.
Why do you think that a copyright ow
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
> > the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" can be
> > meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
> Guimar?es wrote:
> > > If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
> > > understanding and industry practice then you'll have to
> come up with
> > > more than that.
> > >
> > > There's an awful lot of lawyers and law
> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
> discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
> meaningfull to dis
On Friday 09 September 2005 15:46, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Henning Makholm writes:
> > > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> > > at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[control definition]
> The intent here is to avoid a party to this license spinning choice
> assets off into a corporation for the express purpose of playing shell
> games and screwing the licensor in the event of license termination.
If the screwing has a
Scripsit John Hasler
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at
> > the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit" can be
> > meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be discriminated
> > against.
> Wh
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:28:46PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> * 99.. MMIISSCCEELLLLAANNEEOOUUSS..
> This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter
> hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable,
> such prov
Scripsit Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> 9. MISCELLANEOUS.
>> Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
>> shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.
> Can a l
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> o 3.2. Modifications.
> The Modifications that You create or to which You
> contribute are governed by the terms of this License.
I think this is sloppy language - the licensor cannot unilaterally
make his license ap
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > o 3.2. Modifications.
> > The Modifications that You create or to which You
> > contribute are governed by the terms of this License.
>
> I think
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > o 3.3. Required Notices.
> > > You must include a notice in each of Your Modifications
> > > that identi
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
>
> The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree
> *in a
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
>> that choice of venue makes is that it potentiall
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
>
> You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the
> licens
** Matthew Garrett ::
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses
> >> that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
> >
> > The majority (all!) of license we ship
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument
> here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.
You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original
argument isn't.
The argument, simplified, basically
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
>> You seem to assert th
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even
> if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal
> or something such ?
Court procedures always go by the local law of the forum.
--
Henning Mak
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The o
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why does the "exotic courts" aspect actually make any significant
> difference? Are you honestly asserting that the cost of me travelling
> to, say, Finland is going to be large compared to the costs of hiring a
> lawyer to defend me?
I am. If the pl
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
>> fivolous lawsuits.
>
> No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of
> jurisdiction, no harassment results.
Eh?
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
>> impression that it was generally accepted.
>
> I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held
On 9/9/05, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> >> can be meaningfully described as a
> The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
> discrimination against licensors without money?
DFSG #5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."
This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not
Matthew Garrett writes:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
>>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference
>>> that choice of ve
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with
>>> fivolous lawsuits.
>> No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of la
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing
>> against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ?
> The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the
> fact that the licensor
Henning Makholm writes:
> A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
> bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL software I
would file in US district court.
--
John Hasler
--
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
>>> enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless.
>>
>> You seem to assert that licenses cannot
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
>> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
>> unlikely to deter them.
>
> The point is that the cost *for me* of d
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
>>> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
>>
>> The majority (all!) of license we ship do
On 09 Sep 2005 17:52:00 +0200, Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The argument, simplified, basically goes like this:
>
> 1. Program A is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute A.
> Library M is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute M.
> Program B is a derivative of
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
>>> people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
>>> unlikely to deter
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
--cut--
> > That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned
> > exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author
> > thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something
> > we consider at all
Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric. Assume every work
eligible for copyright protection, for the sake of the argument, and
for $DEITY's sake. AND we're talking ONLY about dynamic linking.
AND, to boot, that those bits that end up in a compiled work by way
of being in a .h file (for in
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which
>> isn't very realistic.
>
> No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no
> reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* o
John Hasler writes:
> Henning Makholm writes:
>> A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
>> bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
>
> If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL software I
> would file in US district
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community,
>> not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only
>> ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to
Matthew Garrett writes:
> My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and
> housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary
> legal cases. In any case, "Discriminates against poor people who have an
> insurance policy that covers legal cases in their home c
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>
>> My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and
>> housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary
>> legal cases. In any case, "Discriminates against poor people who have an
>> insuran
[...] o 1.13. "You" (or "Your") means an individual or a legal entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms
of,
this License. For legal entities, "You" includes any entity
which
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to
>> support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to
>> what the license imposes on or requires from users.
>
> What's the point in us worrying a
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we
> >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:24:19PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 9. MISCELLANEOUS.
>
> > Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
> > shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to
"Henning Makholm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
o 3.2. Modifications.
The Modifications that You create or to which You
contribute are governed by the terms of this License.
I thin
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:44:56PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
> > bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
>
> If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
> So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've been
saying that all along.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`.
On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote:
[...] o 1.13. "You" (or "Your") means an individual or a legal
entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the
terms of,
this License. For legal entities, "You" includes any
entity which
controls,
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
> > Guimar?es wrote:
> > > > If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
> > > > understanding and industry practice then you'll have to
> > come
> FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
> right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:56:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> John Hasler writes:
>
> > Henning Makholm writes:
> >> A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
> >> bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
> >
> > If I were to sue you f
> > FRCP 8(a) requires any such claim to explain why the court has
> > jurisdiction over the question and the defendant. How would your
> > pleading address this?
>
> Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
Whose US citizenship?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:44:39PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:44:56PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Henning Makholm writes:
> > > A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
> > > bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousan
Please stop breaking threads.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:53:15PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > > FRCP 8(a) requires any such claim to explain why the court has
> > > jurisdiction over the question and the defendant. How would your
> > > pleading address this?
> >
> > Why would US ci
David Nusinow writes:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:56:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> John Hasler writes:
>>
>> > Henning Makholm writes:
>> >> A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
>> >> bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
> > > Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
> >
> > Whose US citizenship?
>
> The plaintiff.
No.
Because the Court has no bearing on what would a non-US-citizen
nor-US-resident (the defendant) will do. If the Court orders you (*)
to stop distributing some software and you don't, the Polic
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:01:17PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> > > > Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
> > >
> > > Whose US citizenship?
> >
> > The plaintiff.
>
> No.
>
> Because the Court has no bearing on what would a non-US-citizen
> nor-US-resident (the defendant) wi
David Nusinow writes:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:01:17PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
>> > > > Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
>> > >
>> > > Whose US citizenship?
>> >
>> > The plaintiff.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Because the Court has no bearing on what would a non-US-citizen
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument
>> here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.
>
> You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original
> ar
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
>> > Guimar?es wrote:
>> > > > If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
>> > > > understanding
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:30:17PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> No, you are not "telling me why my argument is broken". If you are
> >> trying, you're not being very clear. Why is my argument broken exactly?
> >
> > By trivially continuing it to the next obvious point, it concludes
> > that the
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:56:47PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:44:39PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:44:56PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > > Henning Makholm writes:
> > > > A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs
[debian-devel dropped, way off topic there]
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:37:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing
> > people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is
> > unlikely to deter them.
> The point is that t
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:55:24PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Not really interested in the case where you actually did infringe on
> the license. I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about whether we
> discriminate against such people.
>
> Nuisance lawsuits are the canonical example of the
On 9/9/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am acutely disinterested in that debate because it's long and
> boring, but there's a lot of law professors who like it and think that
> the GPL does work. I suggest you go argue with them instead.
Name one other than Mr. Moglen.
- Michael
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that
>> can't actually be exercised in life? There is no "freedom not to be
>> sued", so it's impossible for a license to contravene that.
>
> There are the DFSG f
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
>> right?
>
> not according to
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
Someone should really file a removal request against Mozilla.
(No, Mozilla is
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
> >> right?
> > not according to
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
> Some
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:55:24PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Not really interested in the case where you actually did infringe on
> > the license. I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about whether we
> > discriminate agains
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> (No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet)
>
> I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
> regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:31:17PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > Ok, thank you for clarifying that. I think we need to consider the point
> > that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause may be
> > important
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:36:30AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> (No, Mozilla is not entirely under the GPL yet)
> > I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actu
John Hasler dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:44:56PM -0500]:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > A bicycle trip to my local courthouse: DKK 2, including write-offs on the
> > bicycle. A trip to some court in America: Tens of thousands of DKKs.
>
> If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL
"Henri Sivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote:
[...] o 1.13. "You" (or "Your") means an individual or a legal
entity
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the
terms of,
this Lice
Matthew Garrett dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:33:09PM +0100]:
> > The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree
> > *in advance* to waive your usual protections against arbitrary
> > lawsuits in exotic courts.
>
> Why does the "exotic courts" aspect actually make any signific
I wrote:
> If I were to sue you for infringing the copyright on my GPL software I
> would file in US district court.
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Does law apply extraterritorially? I don't think so. If he is infringing
> your copyright in Indonesia, you can sue him in Indonesia...
If I find that Nokia i
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005, John Hasler wrote:
> Gunnar Wolf writes:
> > ...Or get him extradited somehow.
>
> Extradition has nothing to do with civil lawsuits.
Hey, copyright infringement is a crime these days...
Don Armstrong
--
[A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the
c
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:52:07PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005, John Hasler wrote:
> > Gunnar Wolf writes:
> > > ...Or get him extradited somehow.
> >
> > Extradition has nothing to do with civil lawsuits.
>
> Hey, copyright infringement is a crime these days...
And the US
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
> >> right?
> >
> > not according to
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
>
On Saturday 10 September 2005 02:48, David Nusinow wrote:
--cut--
> If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it. If the
> two sides live in different places, one of them has to travel no matter
> what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say that choice of venue clauses
> aren
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
>> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
>> can be meaningfully described as a "group of persons" that can be
>> discriminated against. If ev
> Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
> enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
> them?
YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee;
the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate agains
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I doubt that "people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
> >> at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit"
> >> can be meaningfully described a
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some
> of their rights to assure the rights of the "commons".
Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to
enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft bec
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
