On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> and kernel-patch-ethernet-drivers package. But the license is a bit
> vague (see attachment). If I interpret all this lawyer-language
> correctly, following things are problematic:
It looks like Intel is genuinely trying to do the right thing here. They
On 14 Oct 2001, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> All Rights Reserved. RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND: Use,
> duplication, or disclosure by the government is subject
> to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c) (1) (ii)
...
> in a license violate the DFSG?
I guess it depends on those restr
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> 1. Can I package an LGPL library foo that links with a GPL library
> bar?
Only if the GPL library is not required for basic operation of the LGPL
library. This might be because there are non-GPL versions of the GPL
library with looser licenses, or because
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> How can you backup the dvd in analog space? Leaving out the fact you
You can't. However, fortunately the argument that fair use isn't intended
to apply to technologically modern media holds no water at all and is
unlikely to be accepted by anybod
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > But in order for it to have any legal validity, you do need to have a
> > little click-here-to-agree thing before the user uses the program.
>
> How can that make any difference? Assuming that we are talking about
It doesn't. Click-through
I know this isn't precisely Debian related, but this is the only place I
can think of to pose the question (and get useful responses)...
In the post-Napster era, does anyone have an opinion on what the legal
risk might be to individual authors of file-swapping technology?
I am thinking that while
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Paul Martin wrote:
> How DFSG-free is an email from the author saying the following?
>
> > Please feel free to distribute it any way you want.
> > However, it would be nice if you could leave a reference to my
> > web site and email.
Probably it isn't free because it doesn't
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> In principle, this gives them the right to restrict use. However,
> since restrictions on use contradict federal copyright law, I'm dubious.
So you think this portion of UCITA might be unenforceable in general then?
> > c. Upon distribution, the sourc
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> > > 4. Termination clause.
> >
> > It terminates if you violate it, not just because they say so.
>
> How do they determine you violated it? Also, it requires you to
I imagine they would have to pursue legal action for this. There is
nothing in the
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> The question is, does the below meet the DFSG? Particularly since it
> is:
It might. In fact, it seems a lot like the LGPL, except that it is
exceptionally vague on what restrictions it places on derivative works,
and it does not guarantee that the lic
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Please let me know what you think.
I think we have had this debate before :}
I don't remember what the final result was, but most agreed that it is
silly to place restrictions on a license agreement that are already
implied by local law, as they are really
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > You may freely download and use this distribution for any purpose with
> > > the exception that you may not sell or distribute this iso image
> > > without prior permission from Libra Computer Systems Ltd.
...
> However, this cha
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > You may freely download and use this distribution for any purpose with
> > > the exception that you may not sell or distribute this iso image
> > > without prior permission from Libra Computer Systems Ltd.
...
> However, this ch
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > What is this subtle difference ?
>
> Piping is done by using both components in a bigger structure (the pipe is
> added by the user, not something that is provided by either application).
That isn't really important - what's important is that the
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note that the UCITA is not law, and there's a lot of people who think it
> would be a bad idea for it to be made law (attorney generals of about half
But there are a lot of people that think it should be made law - such as
the Virginia state legislature.
We all know that UCITA alters the requirements for warranties on software
- making free software providers responsible for providing warranties, but
exempting commercial software providers from this requirement.
I believe that this law could be construed as banning distribution of GPL
software. T
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > b/c "executable work" as written in the quoted sentence above refers to the
> > executable work as it is being distributed, not as it exists at run-time).
>
> You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with kghostscript
> that the executing
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> electronically) of the paper, even by myself. May I conclude that if I
> make sure to distribute the paper with a liberal licence (maybe even
> GPL) prior to transferring the copyright, they cannot enforce their
> measures, provided I make sure that e
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> It doesn't matter; the GPL isn't a contract.
That's good, as it restores things to their rightful order :}
> The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Contracts require consideration to be taken as valid contracts. Mere
> promises are not legally enforceable. However, the right to copy the
> software is most certainly consideration. There is no requirement
> that the consideration be tangible; int
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote:
> about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
> over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom talk",
> as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.
That's right. It's unfortunate, but I don
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire
> distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was
> assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
In short, you can't do that. You can't circumvent the provisions of t
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote:
> I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> they've been pulling, (i.e. a license ev
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I think imposing additional conditions on the use of software downloaded
> from Corel in fact contaminates EVERY license. And while some of the
It does, but Corel isn't following the DFSG, so I don't think it matters.
> by Corel to their licenses, I am
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Caspian wrote:
> However, I am under the -distinct- impression that Corel would consider
> anyone obtaining their distribution without agreeing to their EULA
> 'illegal'/'immoral', or in other words "against their rules".
So sad. Corel has no choice in the matter. They are
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Does a source that's licensed under the GPL automaticly produce a binary
> that can only be licensed under the GPL?
If you are the author of the program, you can distribute the binary and
the source under separate, even incompatible, licenses. You c
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> # 3.Derived Works
> #
> # The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them
> # to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original
> # software.
>
> Something odd is going on. GPL'ed programs are fr
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Matthew Simpson wrote:
> > You are free to use and distribute any command string in the Printer
> > Technical Reference. I double checked this with my manager. The only
That seems like a pretty straightforward answer to me. What aspect of the
law are you worried about violat
28 matches
Mail list logo
