Re: X.Net, Inc. License

2001-08-06 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 08:58:30AM -0400, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Karsten M. Self writes: I'm assuming that markup isn't a legal part of the license -- and would strongly encourage submissions be made as plaintext, not HTML-tagged content. If you got a Word .doc

Re: X.Net, Inc. License

2001-08-06 Thread Matthew C. Weigel
On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Karsten M. Self writes: I'm assuming that markup isn't a legal part of the license -- and would strongly encourage submissions be made as plaintext, not HTML-tagged content. If you got a Word .doc file, would you also assume that the markup

Re: X.Net, Inc. License

2001-08-06 Thread M. Drew Streib
On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote: My opinion is that MIT License with specified jurisdiction should be approved, as this seems like a valid concern. Specified jurisdictions are extremely common, and imo do not conflict with the intent of this contract. They

Re: X.Net, Inc. License

2001-08-06 Thread John Cowan
Matthew C. Weigel scripsit: My opinion is that MIT License with specified jurisdiction should be approved, as this seems like a valid concern. It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not GPL-compatible. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] One

Re: X.Net, Inc. License

2001-08-06 Thread Forrest J Cavalier III
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew C. Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] My opinion is that MIT License with specified jurisdiction should be approved, as this seems like a valid concern. It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not GPL-compatible. When the jurisdictions are

Re: X.Net, Inc. License

2001-08-06 Thread M. Drew Streib
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:08:37PM -0400, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote: It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not GPL-compatible. When the jurisdictions are different, they are not compatible with each other either. That seems like a problem. I believe that both of

Re: X.Net, Inc. License

2001-08-06 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:19:20PM -0400, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Matthew C. Weigel scripsit: My opinion is that MIT License with specified jurisdiction should be approved, as this seems like a valid concern. It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not

Re: GPLv2 'web-app loophole'

2001-08-06 Thread M. Drew Streib
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 04:01:26PM -0700, Abraham Ingersoll wrote: In leiu of the FSF's expert advice, does anyone here have a qualified opinion about this 'web-app loophole' and possible remedies we should entertain? Specifically -- what exactly consitutes a derivative work of SourceForge

Re: GPLv2 'web-app loophole'

2001-08-06 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 04:01:26PM -0700, Abraham Ingersoll ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: We (Dajoba, LLC) publish web-based software under the GPL. We recently came across a company who has taken our GPL'd code, modified it and actively resells access to (use of) the renamed application. They

Re: GPLv2 'web-app loophole'

2001-08-06 Thread David Johnson
On Monday 06 August 2001 04:01 pm, Abraham Ingersoll wrote: We (Dajoba, LLC) publish web-based software under the GPL. We recently ...we simply want to feel out people's attitudes regarding this 'web-app loophole' Cool! I have some attitudes and opinions on this, and since you asked, I'll

GPLv3 : When?

2001-08-06 Thread Wap
Does anyone here has a clue about when GPLv3 should be released? Thanx for the info. Wap

RE: GPLv2 'web-app loophole'

2001-08-06 Thread Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
As Larry said, you are asking an incredibly complicated legal question. Two points: register your work with the Copyright Office immediately (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/) and hire an attorney. Consulting FSF may be helpful, but you seem to be presenting a classic case of someone needing legal