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 has
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
Someone should
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't
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:48:12PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
If the justification for this is to be grounded in the discrimination
clause of the DFSG, we can't choose to discriminate against the
program's authors.
Even if we accept this argument, how is putting the authors on equal
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Part of the issue with the existing framework of personal jurisdiction is
that we don't seem to have a clear idea what it actually is. I haven't seen
any links to documents explaining how jurisdiction is actually determined
in real life cases.
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 against such
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:48:12PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
Sorry, this sentence registers as complete nonsense to me. If you're
going to claim that requiring certain things of *authors* before their
code can be included in Debian is a fee, how is this particular fee
different from the
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:27:08AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And remember that in many jurisdictions, it's also possible to sue for
legal expenses under various circumstances. That means that the net
(monetary) cost to a copyright holder for defending his copyright is
potentially zero.
Choice of venue is a practical problem because it limits
the number of people who can understand the full meaning of
a licence, including the local wrinkles of its venue. I say
there's potential for an effective fee in some cases, but I
don't know the courts of (say) Santa Clara well enough to
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I
think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't
enforce?
A licence can communicate your wishes to others clearly and
it's a sort of promise to your
Steve Langasek wrote:
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
currently claim.
I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not true. In my copious
spare time, I'm attempting to complete the Mozilla
On 9/9/05, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I find that Nokia is selling phones that infringe my copyright by
violating the terms of the license on my software I should not have to fly
to Finland to sue them. Fortunately, I do not, even in the absence of a
choice of venue clause.
I will be on business trip during Sept 6-11. Should you need any immediate
assistance, please kindly contact
Carol Cheng, at [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 852-2961 2586; or
ring my mobile at (852) 9650 0518 / (86) 13143905977.
Thank you for the email.
Manna Ma
TTG Asia Media Pte Ltd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 9/10/05, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I have verbal assurance from the Mozilla folks that it is, actually,
regardless of what the various copyright statements in the tree
currently claim.
I don't know who assured you of that, but it's not true. In my
On 9/9/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric.
Given the context, I haven't a clue what that means. This could be anywhere
from begging the question to a desire to focus on some useful 10% of
my questions.
Assume every work
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please use a non-broken mail program.
Quoting mutt's documentation all mail clients suck.
A corollary is that all mail clients can be considered broken, in
some fashion.
A corollary to that (and something of a truism in the context of
all
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Nothing paricularly non-free seeming about that. Heck it means that moving
code between subsideriaries is not distribution, which could be helpful to
some companies.
So I think this clause is a non-issue.
Thanks to all for the explanations. I never
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and
every Contributor for any liability incurred by the
Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of
warranty, support, indemnity or liability
Andrew Suffield wrote:
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...
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please use a non-broken mail program.
Anyways, please say what you mean in a fashion that carries
useful information.
Thank you Mr. Pedant. If you'll examine the grandparent mail to
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Would it be out of place to ask what code, exactly, is involved?
Not at all, no. As the licensing state of the tree is determined by a
script, and because I haven't run it in the past few weeks, I can't tell
you exactly offhand. I will attempt to take up the
On 9/10/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On 9/9/05, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please use a non-broken mail program.
Anyways, please say what you mean in a fashion that carries
useful information.
Thank
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Especially as the CDDL mentions that the loosing side has to pay the
expenses. This leaves only the need to advance the money,
Aren't you assuming here that the loser has money to pay with?
--
Henning Makholm I Guds Faders namn, och
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Notice that the CDDL says :
with the losing party responsible for costs, including, without limitation,
court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses
how does that modify our acceptance of the choice-of-venue ?
I don't think it does. It
Scripsit David Nusinow [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
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:28:46 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The discussions on
CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.
Let's do something about this.
OK, let's try! :)
COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND
On Saturday 10 September 2005 18:54, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you
want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane
cases' to enter the scene... all over the
On Sep 10, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not now. Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
apparent ill effect on users.
Not true. Many licenses that failed to comply with DFSG [0] has not been
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star
is
weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug.
While it is obviously true that the
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:57:04PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 10, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not now. Debian (and I think every other distribution) has been
distributing software with this kind of licenses for years, without any
apparent ill effect on users.
Not
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
Dissident problem here. Anonymous contributions should be allowed.
I disagree on this point, This is needed to
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:17:06 -0400 David Nusinow wrote:
I think we need to consider the point
that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause
may be important for a program author to successfully defend their
copyright. If the justification for this is to be grounded in
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:48:54 +0300 Henri Sivonen wrote:
MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free, right?
DFSG-free? The MPL?
I wouldn't say so, based on what I recall... :-(
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
[clause 3.3 goes on]
You may not
remove or alter any copyright, patent or trademark notices
contained within the Covered Software,
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This might fail the Dissident test (and thus discriminate against
Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter.
The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See:
http://wiki.debian.net/?DissidentTest
On Sep 09, George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want
(unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to
enter the scene... all over the world.
Not now. Debian (and I think every other
On Sep 09, George Danchev [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.
here they are:
So finally we are up to the good old every restriction is a
discrimination argument. Even if in the last two years it has
37 matches
Mail list logo
