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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Does anyone here has a clue about when GPLv3 should be released?
Thanx for the info.
Wap
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
12 matches
Mail list logo