As far as I understand English, this means absolutely nothing.
Part by part...
>
> (c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are
> conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or
> in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defi
I don't doubt what you're saying--it's just the standard cost/benefit
tradeoff we all face about a million times a day, in one form or another.
My point is that MS has enough money and lawyers that they surely made this
particular tradeoff in exactly this way, and I'm curious as to why they did
i
On Monday 25 June 2001 05:02 am, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
> ===LICENSE===
> Any OSI (www.opensource.org) compliant/approved license.
> Just go to the OSI site, and pick your favorite license
> ===LICENSE===
>
> The point is, am I in any danger doing t
On Monday 25 June 2001 08:41 am, Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
> Perhaps the biggest would be the antitrust laws. The Sherman Act doesn't
> allow parties to negotiate agreements which have a net-anticompetitive
> effect on the relevant market.
Do you know anyone who has _negotiated_ with Microsof
On Monday 25 June 2001 07:14 am, John Cowan wrote:
> Proprietary licenses can insist that you use their product only while
>
> standing on one foot. Whether you buy such a product is up to you.
They can insist on it, but I seriously doubt the validity of it.
--
David Johnson
_
Ravicher, Daniel B. scripsit:
> I have to agree with John.
Hey, IANAL, so when a Real Lawyer agrees with me on the law, I'm doing okay!
"Possession is said to be nine points of the law, *but that's not saying
how many points the law might have.*"
-- my father the law professor
--
Jo
> -Original Message-
> From: Lou Grinzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> But the more important issues, I think, is what's up with MS
> and this "in
> conjunction with" phrasing. I can't believe that MS's
> lawyers don't realize
> how vague that statement is, which makes it sound suspi
Thanks, guys. I didn't mean to get off on a tangent with the pancakes and
blue socks thing.
But the more important issues, I think, is what's up with MS and this "in
conjunction with" phrasing. I can't believe that MS's lawyers don't realize
how vague that statement is, which makes it sound sus
I have to agree with John. Generally, licensors can offer any restriction
they wish to a potential licensee who can then decide whether or not they
want to accept it. But, there are a few limitations.
Perhaps the biggest would be the antitrust laws. The Sherman Act doesn't
allow parties to n
Lou Grinzo wrote:
> Could you say they
> can only use the software if they had pancakes for breakfast and are wearing
> blue socks?
Proprietary licenses can insist that you use their product only while
standing on one foot. Whether you buy such a product is up to you.
--
There is / one art
This is bordering on the bizarre, IMO. I bet the lawyers will have a field
day deciding what "in conjunction with" means. (On the same disk?
Dynamically linked? Statically linked? In the same archive, even if it's
unrelated software? From the same ftp directory?)
In more general terms I'm al
Please excuse cross-posting.
In light of recent discussions regarding license incompatibilities, thought
members of these list might be interested in this explicit statement of
incompatibility in a new beta license from MS, a license which allows for
the limited creation and distribution of de
A quite simple question.
I see several people talking about dual licensing. I think it's a little
less them what I like, and usualy, on most of the software I write, this
is the license I use:
===LICENSE===
Any OSI (www.opensource.org) compliant/approved license.
Just go t
What's the deal with dual licensing? Good? Bad?
14 matches
Mail list logo
