--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 12:05:44AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > It does not say only "any use ..is the sole responsability.."
> > (disclaimer) it adds " is forbidden..".
> >
> > Any body who has been in far and strange countries knows how "local
> > law" could be stu
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:24:19PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Look up "tort" in a legal dictionary.
> >
> > Who gave this man a legal dictionary?
>
> What?
Somebody needs to take it away from you before you hurt someone. ;-)
--
see shy j
> It does not say only "any use ..is the sole responsability.."
> (disclaimer) it adds " is forbidden..".
>
> Any body who has been in far and strange countries knows how "local
> law" could be stupid, oppressive and casual, so since 'it is
> forbidden' it prevent the use in such countries where
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:24:19PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Look up "tort" in a legal dictionary.
>
> Who gave this man a legal dictionary?
What?
--
G. Branden Robinson |Murphy's Guide to Science:
Debian GNU/Linux|If it's green or
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Look up "tort" in a legal dictionary.
Who gave this man a legal dictionary?
--
see shy jo
[my apologies for the private mail if you are subscribed to debian-legal]
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 07:30:05PM +0100, Stephen Turner wrote:
> The reason for this clause was that I was advised by a lawyer (albeit
> in an informal conversation) that I could be liable under UK law if a
> user used the
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 05:29:59AM -0700, Steve M Bibayoff wrote:
> Could you please define what "criminal laws" are, and where you found such
> a word and defintion.
Look up "tort" in a legal dictionary.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Men use thought only to justify their
Debian GNU/Lin
I am the upstream author of analog. Sorry for not contributing to this
discussion earlier. I just got back from holiday to find this forty-message
thread.
Contrary to what the filer of the original bug says, I did change this
clause after he contacted me before -- that's why it changed from (the
o
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:28:57PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> He's correct, the current part of the license in question is:
>
> 1) Any use of analog which is illegal under international or local law
>is forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole
>responsibility of the person co
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > You quote wrong. It says:
> >
> > | 1. Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> > | forbidden by this licence.
>
> Ok, then the licence is old. Take the new from analogs home page. There
> it is "Any use"
He's correct, the current part of the
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Actually, there is a point related to what Bernhard is saying.
> >
> > At least in the U.S., only a small, small fraction of the laws are
> > criminal laws.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 05:29:59AM -0700, Steve M Bibayoff wrote:
> Could you please define what
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, there is a point related to what Bernhard is saying.
>
> At least in the U.S., only a small, small fraction of the laws are
> criminal laws.
Could you please define what "criminal laws" are, and where you found such
a word and defintion.
Steve
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 03:56:20PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > > 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> > > forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole
> > > re
On 15 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I may quote: "Any use of analog which is illegal under "
>
> You quote wrong. It says:
>
> | 1. Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> | forbidden by this licence.
Ok, then the licence is old. Take the new from analogs home p
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > (But please: Not because of "crime" as "field of endavour".
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:08:18AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> It is, whether you like it or not.
Actually, there is a point related to what Bernhard is saying.
At least in the U.S
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > No. It says that if I commit any crime whatsoever (e.g. bicycling
> > at night without the lights on), then I am breaking the contract
> > that lets me use the software.
> I may quote: "Any use of a
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> No. It says that if I commit any crime whatsoever (e.g. bicycling at night
> without the lights on), then I am breaking the contract that lets me use
> the software.
I may quote: "Any use of analog which is illegal under "
So your example does not ma
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote:
> The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard. This clause in
> particular is designed so people don't subjectively chose who
> they like and who they don't.
I also think so about objectivity. But you can overract.
For example, i could get mad and
Scripsit John Galt
> Basically, it all boils down to: where this
> contract fails, ALL contracts fail,
No. It says that if I commit any crime whatsoever (e.g. bicycling at night
without the lights on), then I am breaking the contract that lets me use
the software. This does *NOT* apply to all oth
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole
> responsibility of the person committing the action.
I jaywalked yesterday in CA, so did I now break the licence agreement? I
jaywalke
By my argument, it's redundant, not meaningless. The action which is
illegal voids the contract, both in common law and explicitly by this
particular contract clause. Basically, it all boils down to: where this
contract fails, ALL contracts fail, and if this is not the case, the
contract is unen
;-)
--
Eric R. Sherrill, WF Software Systems Engineer
Texas Instruments HFAB1 Automation Systems
Stafford, TX 77477-3006
-Original Message-
From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 3:11 PM
To: Henning Makholm
Cc: Brian Behlendorf; Joey Hess; debian-leg
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:10:52PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a "keep it
> legal" clause make it non DFSG free?
"Keep it legal" is not the clause being discussed. Instead, it's
"1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
f
This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a "keep it
legal" clause make it non DFSG free? Contracts (licensing
agreements) may not cover illegal actions: a contract to perform an arson
is null and void regardless of the wording of the contract. So logically,
a contract that has a "keep
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:07:22PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote:
> > The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard.
>
> Not really, it's way too broad for that. If it were completely objective
> there'd be no debate about whether a given license vi
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote:
> The DFSG is designed to be an objective standard.
Not really, it's way too broad for that. If it were completely objective
there'd be no debate about whether a given license violated it or not.
> Anyway, if this is acceptable, then can someone put in
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 Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 06:11:15PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> I think this scenario leads to an very gray area. Where does
> the author want to sue him? As I understand law, A broke only
> the copyright laws of his "evil" country. (As you said before:
> International agreements are not law bu
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 06:14:59PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Don Marti wrote:
>
> > First of all, crime, especially organized crime, is a "Field of
> > Endeavor." Second, some people who are considered criminals in one
> > country are freedom fighters in another country
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It is not. Consider this scenario:
> > the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even
> > though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he
> > broke originally.
> I
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Don Marti wrote:
> First of all, crime, especially organized crime, is a "Field of
> Endeavor." Second, some people who are considered criminals in one
> country are freedom fighters in another country.
I do not think that theese are so valid points.
> Third, [..]
>
> Not e
On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> It is not. Consider this scenario:
>
> the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even
> though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he
> broke originally.
>
I think this scenario leads to an very gray area. Where
begin Bernhard R. Link quotation of Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:34:05AM +0200:
> First of all I see this as a moot point, as an illigal action is
> illegal. By saying that you behave illegal, when you do something illegal
> is no discrimination in my eyes but should be seen as only
> beeing a reimind
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility
> of the person committing the action.
Hmm.. and what about actions which are illegal even though t
Scripsit Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > We've had arguments over export regulations, and the general consensus
> > is that they aren't DFSG free, so this isn't either.
> I don't follow. This is not an export restriction.
No, but the problem with export restriction clauses is not that they
co
Scripsit Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> > forbidden by this licence. Any such action is the sole
> > responsibility of the person committing the action.
> > This provision of the
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> - Forwarded message from Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by
> this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the pers
Joey Hess writes:
> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> > > forbidden by
> > > this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
> > > committing the action.
> > > [.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:16:08AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> > > forbidden by
> > > this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
> >
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden
> > by
> > this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
> > committing the action.
> >
> > This provision of the licence blaten
David Starner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Please let me know what you think.
> >
> > - Forwarded message from Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> >
> > The Analog licence states:
> >
> > 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by
> this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
> committing the action.
>
> This provision of the licence blatently violates section 6 of
> the DFSG whic
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> - Forwarded message from Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> The Analog licence states:
>
> 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden by
> this licence.
Please let me know what you think.
- Forwarded message from Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:50:19 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Analog licence violates DFSG
Reply-To: [EMAIL P
44 matches
Mail list logo
