"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
>
> The Eiffel "license" ...
> ... may be too "permissive" to constitute an enforceable
> agreement...in that it appears to lack consideration.
I am aware that in some countries, a consideration is required to make a
contract enforceable. But does that also apply
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> I understand. Certainly, you, as the copyright holder, may impose as few
> restrictions on users as you desire. Nothing wrong with that. There is
> another issue, however. Copyleft is an attempt by some people who believe in
> "free" software to
I have not read the BSD licenses in a while, but I know that the FSF/Richard
Stallman argues that they have no copyleft provision. Again, the absence of
a copyleft provision in a public license is not a critical failure to
maintaining an open source/free software project, but the absence of
copyle
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> Someone, I have forgotten who, sorry, made an interesting comment about the
> enforceability of GPLs, generally. I agree that it is an open question
> whether a court would enforce some public licenses. If a license lacks
> consideration, it'
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Someone, I have forgotten who, sorry, made an interesting comment about the
> enforceability of GPLs, generally. I agree that it is an open question
> whether a court would enforce some public licenses. If a license lacks
> consideration, it's
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Patrick Doyle wrote:
> Legally, you can do two things:
>
> 1. Adhere to the terms of the license.
> 2. Don't make copies of the software.
>
> Is it not that simple? (Please excuse my ignorance. :-)
That's the way I have always viewed licenses. You have a limited set of
r
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Patrick Doyle wrote:
>
> > Legally, you can do two things:
> >
> > 1. Adhere to the terms of the license.
> > 2. Don't make copies of the software.
> >
> > Is it not that simple? (Please excuse my ignorance. :-)
>
[...]
>
> I
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> I have not read the BSD licenses in a while, but I know that the FSF/Richard
> Stallman argues that they have no copyleft provision.
> ...
> Consequently, I think this is a rather appropriate time to discuss
> the BSD and other public licenses.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Patrick Doyle wrote:
> Aha, I see what you mean. It seems that this goes beyond copyright law
> into the territory of contract law. I know nothing about the latter--and
> almost nothing about the former--but it is far from obvious that such
> "licenses" are legally binding.
9 matches
Mail list logo
