Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
If they were contracts, you would have to sign them ...
You're misinformed, that is just one of many forms to manifest assent.
Assent may be manifested by written or spoken words, or by conduct. See
also
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
If they were contracts, you would have to sign them ...
You're misinformed, that is just one of many forms to manifest assent.
Assent may be manifested by written or spoken words, or by conduct. See
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Which license are you talking about? The [L]GPL (both 2 and 3)
purports to impose a whole bunch of covenants ("conditions" but
not "conditions precedent") upon licensees. See, for example
http://www.actonline.org/library/GPLv3-Contract-or-Copyright.html
"Accordingl
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
[...]
The [L]GPL (both 2 and 3) purports to impose a whole bunch
of covenants ("conditions" but not "conditions precedent")
upon licensees.
>>
No it doesn't.
[...]
"Regardless of what server hosts the Corresp
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
[...]
You have no right to redistribute the software - with
or without the source code - under copyright law, unless
such freedom is granted by a license.
Stop being such an idiot, Tyler. From "Understanding Open Source and
Free Software Lice
Re: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/open_source_railroad/
These guys have stripped out the header notices - can't they get
them under the DMCA copyright law?
``Provision 4: Removing copyright management information
--
The fourth pro
The saga:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/
The ruling:
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf
One bit not mentioned in the news stories:
Although Defendants represent that they have voluntarily ceased
all potentially infringing activities utilizing any of the
disputed mat
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Re: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/ch06.pdf
(Chapter 6: Legal Impacts of Open Source and Free Software Licensing)
``This issue has obvious application to the open source and
free software licenses already discussed. Staying
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster Copyright
Litigation,
> 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) ("If a breach of contract (and a
copyright license
is just a type of contract) . . . "); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery,
Inc.,
> 67 F.3d 9
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
On 2007-08-28, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Users do not agree to *anything* by the act of
copying something. The worst that can happen
is that they can subsequently be sued for copyright
violation - since the user can simply claim that they
never bothe
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
*If* the user agreed to a contract by simply copying,
the world would be full of court cases where
SlimeSoft had included in the small print of its
license agreement:
"And by the act of copying this software, you hereby
agree to sell all
rjack wrote:
Google just announced the end of the GPL and the Free Software
Foundation's "viral" FUD.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=428
A ridiculous subject line.
--
__
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove lock to reply.
___
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It is worth nothing that Sun has never made available a public
list of the IP they own and that you need to license in order to legally
be able to run Java (personally, I think they don't know themselves:
such things are really tricky to figure out, even internally).
13 matches
Mail list logo
