Am Mo 28 Jan 2008 09:25:21 CET
schrieb Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I cannot speak to the British system, so John
my very well be right in that context, but in the United States the
critical question is whether the advice being given is of a specific
or general nature.
In Germany the
Am Mo 28 Jan 2008 09:27:54 CET
schrieb John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on
earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as
constituting legal advice in the first place.
Okay: Yes there is. At least the German one, and,
On Jan 26, 2008 2:52 PM, Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
disclaimer like TINLA?
Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on
earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as
constituting
On Monday 28 January 2008 01:27:54 am John Halton wrote:
Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal
system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is
a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it
away post factum. A
Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
disclaimer like TINLA?
I think the long list of acronyms may be a sly dig at certain silly
postings in times past which complained that certain people weren't making
it clear enough that
On torsdagen den 24 januari 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
* line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by
a
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:11:48 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
The may be non-free aspect was the requirement of requiring the
creator of the derivative work to surrender their copyright to
OpenVision. If such a requirement were in place in the license terms,
I would regard it as non-free.
I
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
*If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to
create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it
requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create/distribute
derivative works.
I forgot
Hi,
Francesco Poli schrieb:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
*If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to
create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it
requires a fee in exchange for the permission to
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:23:53AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
* line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or
On Jan 24, 2008 12:23 AM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the
licence, but it's not non-free.
I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of retain
copyright is not all-inclusive.
Well, as ever in these
Hi Debian-legal.
We (gNewSense) just had someone report [3] two clauses in the krb5 (source)
package. [1] has its current (Sid) copyright file.
I dont see a bug about it, so i'm asking if someone could look at the licence
and say if they think the clauses are DFSG free or not?
Thanks in
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
---
The following copyright and permission notice
Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... I think the license of krb5
(http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/k/krb5/krb5_1.4.3-5ubuntu0.2/)
has two unclear sections regarding freedom:
* line 18-21: Export of this software from the United States of
America may require a
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:28 +, John Halton wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is
the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* line 81-83: OpenVision
also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat
this software
Julien Cristau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a
third party. I
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
* line 81-83: OpenVision
also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether
created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat
this software freedom.
AIUI this says that
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
* line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by
a third party. I think this could threat this software
19 matches
Mail list logo
