This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is established,
etc. etc.
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
>To: giulio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: debian-legal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: outside USA
>Date: 11 Jun 2000 20:14:03 -0400
>
>giulio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ
Just some follow-up for those who may be interested
Sorry butThis is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is
established hereby, etc. etc.
>From: Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Chloe Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Su
Actually Henning's understanding of the nature of the clause is correct.
An indemnity is a different animal than a warranty - they are not
synonymous. A (no) warranty clause in a software license typically addresses
what a licensor guarantees (or does not guarantee) with respect to the
softwar
license
>Date: 06 Jul 2000 21:00:34 -0400
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 11:38:21 EDT, "Chloe Hoffman"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Chloe> Actually Henning's understanding of the nature of the clause
> Chloe> is correct. An i
I would note in the U.S. (at least) however the following:
§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a)A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not
valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the
transfer, is in writing and signe
From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:33:50 +0530
Arnoud Engelfriet said on Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:59:49PM +0100,:
> Because the Berne Convention appears to state s
This happens not infrequently in the U.S. (and at least other common law
countries). The "foreign" law is provided by the parties through argument,
declarations/affidavits and expert testimony. Here is an example case where
a Pennsylvania court applied Virginia law.
http://www.paed.uscourts.go
Also, note that at least Australia and England extend copyright protection
to "industrious collections" (i.e., 'sweat of the brow' databases such as
white pages). See, e.g.,
in Australia - Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation
Limited
(http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.
- Original Message -
From: "Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
>
> Copyright subsists automatically in photographs in most countries
(apparently
> not Canada, I
- Original Message -
From: "Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Help about texture inclueded in stellarium
> I'm going to deal with these one at a time, to avoid really long messages.
>
> * The Eart
Companies like Apple and General Electric would be disappointed to hear
that. I think you meant that dictionary words can't be trademarked where
those words are clearly descriptive of the goods and services in association
with which they are associated.
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew
By doing a little research this is what the U.K. Copyright, Design and
Patents Act 1988 says about U.K. "crown copyright" (whether these provisions
have amended I am not sure):
Crown copyright.
163.
(1)Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the
Crown in the cours
See comments interspered below. Of course, we're talking about U.S. law here
so your mileage may vary in other countries. There is certainly no complete
harmony (although partial harmony on some aspects is starting to happen)
around the world on almost every IP right.
This is not legal advice,
See comments interspered below. Talking about U.S. law here - in other
countries your mileage may vary.
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship established, etc.
etc.
From: Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTE
See comments interspersed below. Talking about U.S. law here - your mileage
may vary in other countries.
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship established, etc
etc
From: Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
S
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: "Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: complete clone of the debian website
Date: 07 Jun 2000 20:46:33 -0400
"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "All
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is established,
etc. etc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: giulio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal
Subject: Re: outside USA
Date: 11 Jun 2000 20:14:03 -0400
giulio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since my works co
Just some follow-up for those who may be interested
Sorry butThis is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is
established hereby, etc. etc.
From: Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chloe Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re
Actually Henning's understanding of the nature of the clause is correct.
An indemnity is a different animal than a warranty - they are not
synonymous. A (no) warranty clause in a software license typically addresses
what a licensor guarantees (or does not guarantee) with respect to the
softwar
yle
license
Date: 06 Jul 2000 21:00:34 -0400
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 11:38:21 EDT, "Chloe Hoffman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Chloe> Actually Henning's understanding of the nature of the clause
Chloe> is correct. An indemnity is a different animal than a
I would note in the U.S. (at least) however the following:
§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a)A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not
valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the
transfer, is in writing and signe
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is established,
etc. etc.
My understanding is that Virginia law would be applied by the Albanian court
(provided, among other things, jurisdiction can be obtained in Albania and
provided the Albanian court will accept the contractual ch
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is established,
etc. etc.
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal Mailing List
Subject: Re: Irony of RSA Encryption
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:48:54 -0400
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 02:14:
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is established,
etc. etc.
Sorry about the delay in responding...been away
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chloe Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Irony of RSA Encryption
D
This is not legal advice, no client-attorney relationship is established,
etc. etc.
With respect to this package, I suggest taking a look at this case - CASTLE
ROCK ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. CAROL PUBLISHING GROUP, 150 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir.
1998)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/150_F3d_
What is not highly visible to most is that Hollywood and book publishers
have large rights clearance infrastructures. Moreover, the threat of mutual
copyright destruction is strong among these established organizations i.e.
you sue me for copyright infringement, I may or probably will countercla
This is the kind of notice that gets deep-pocket distributors in knots.
Pedigree is a major concern. Where did this code from? Is it authorized for
distribution? Did some insider take this (perhaps confidential) source and
add it to the distribution?
The deep-pocket distributor could be sued b
Just for interest.. here is the European Copyright Directive language with
respect to reverse engineering. Note that reverse engineering is quite
limited. Also, more accurately, the contractual prohibition may be null and
void but there are no other consequences AFAIK e.g. fines, etc.
Article
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Subject: Re: Question about the old BSD license and GPL (gtkipmsg)
Date: 20 Jun 2001 20:04:21 -0700
"none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
From: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:27:57 +0100
none <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
From: Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:12:01 -0700
[Aaron Lehmann kindly posted my private comment to him that Eric
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chloe Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Question about the old BSD license and GPL (gtkipmsg)
Date:
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: "Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
Date: 21 Jun 2001 09:48:34 -0700
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: none <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:01:2
Please excuse cross-posting.
In light of recent discussions regarding license incompatibilities, thought
members of these list might be interested in this explicit statement of
incompatibility in a new beta license from MS, a license which allows for
the limited creation and distribution of de
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: xfig-doc has license problems in examples
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:50:31 -0400
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson
wrote:
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be
started?]
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:36:3
37 matches
Mail list logo
