On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
So, if i want to be protected, i have to give away my copyright ?
Unless you want to do the protecting yourself, yes, since it's pretty
difficult for the FSF to file a suit against someone without being the
copyright holder. Although, they have been known
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:37:05PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
Protection against users not respecting the licence and reusing
GPLed code in proprietary software for example ?
That's what organizations like the FSF are for. If you're concerned
about
On 2004-08-19 08:06:27 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I still wonder what this means for europe, where assigning copyright
seems to
be illegal or something.
Measures with similar effect seem to be possible in other European
jurisdictions. See the FSFE's work on the FLA.
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself
in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and
powerfull have the right to get their licence
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin
myself
in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that
Sven Luther writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
Similarly, did you follow the Microsoft vs. Lindo*s issue? Microsoft
sued in US courts, failed to get an injunction, then venue shopped for
a court that would give them the ruling they wanted, ending up in
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:35:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:41:57AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:38:26PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
I saw a short note by Andrew Suffield regarding Choice of Venue in Free
Software licenses, which was pointed to by the Debian weekly news.
Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting
Free Software
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:01:59AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which
traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful
information from it, and posts an inaccurate remark along with a URL
to something inappropriate. So
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:44:09AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:01:59AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which
traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful
information from it, and posts an
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
i believe much as you do above, and that debian-legal has been
slanted much in defending the rights of the user of free software,
at the detriment of the upstream author.
Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending
the rights of
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:07:17AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
i believe much as you do above, and that debian-legal has been
slanted much in defending the rights of the user of free software,
at the detriment of the upstream author.
Even though
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending
the rights of a user of Free Software. If the upstream author wants to
protect and preserve their rights, they are interested in proprietary
software, not Free
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 05:26:22PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Even though this is a tangent point, Free Software involves defending
the rights of a user of Free Software. If the upstream author wants to
protect and preserve
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
Protection against users not respecting the licence and reusing
GPLed code in proprietary software for example ?
That's what organizations like the FSF are for. If you're concerned
about such a thing, assign your copyrights to the FSF, and they will
be
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:21:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, imagine the following case. I have contributed some code to the linux
kernel, if i want to sue SCO over it, i have to go to the US, and ruin myself
in lawyer and other such nonsense. This clearly mean that only the rich and
Bruce Perens walking in on a debate and attempting to hand down Word from
Above without actually addressing any of the arguments that have been
presented, as if three hundred posts of debate can be settled beyond
dispute in just one ...
--
Glenn Maynard
Bruce Perens writes:
Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting
Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits /against them /in venues
where it is difficult or impossible to defend themselves, but where
they could still be damaged. In general such damage would be due
* Michael Poole ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040818 00:25]:
Bruce Perens writes:
Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting
Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits /against them /in venues
where it is difficult or impossible to defend themselves, but where
they
Andreas Barth writes:
* Michael Poole ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040818 00:25]:
Bruce Perens writes:
Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting
Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits /against them /in venues
where it is difficult or impossible to defend
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:38:26PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
Choice of venue can be a useful clause for the purpose of protecting
Free Software authors from frivolous lawsuits /against them /in venues
where it is difficult or impossible to defend themselves, but where they
could still be
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 05:17:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Bruce Perens walking in on a debate and attempting to hand down Word from
Above without actually addressing any of the arguments that have been
presented, as if three hundred posts of debate can be settled beyond
dispute in just
22 matches
Mail list logo
