Chris D. Sloan scripsit:
> - US law says I have the right, but the license tries to take it
> away. Which one wins?
Nobody knows. Specifically, nobody knows because copyright is a federal
matter, and it's not clear whether a contract (which is governed by state
law) can derogate from a right
I was recently added to a Romanian homosexual mailing list against my wishes
(no, don't laugh!). This was a yahoogoups group. Yahoo has subsequently
ignored my requests for removal from that list.
Tracing this problem down, it turns out that my name was obtained off of this
very mailing list b
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 11:16:43AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> As is well known, I think the "otherwise using" part of clause 8
> is mere flatus vocis: using software you lawfully own can't impose
> any contract requirement on you.
Can obtaining that copy impose restrictions on use, though?
In ot
On Monday 19 November 2001 05:05 am, David Woolley wrote:
> David Johnson wrote:
> > As long as I obey the law with regards to copyright, then it is
>
> impossible
>
> > for me to violate the GPL. Thus I am safe in not agreeing to it.
>
> That means that you never download the software
> from a
Karsten M. Self wrote:
> A narrow reading of the GPL might hold that conditioning acceptence of
> licensing terms on use of a program is an incompatible additional
> licensing condition. This raises concerns as earlier iterations of
> Python licensing have similar language.
Only if you believe
I now think that Python 2.2 is GPL-compatible, based on a close
reading of its terms. In particular, I think that only the
first eight numbered paragraphs (the Python 2.2 license proper)
are actually operative. The others are "dead code", so to
speak, which must be carried along with the license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 19 November 2001 15:14, you wrote:
> > I have been working on a software project which I intend to license under
the
> > QPL. I have decided to choose this type of license because I thought I
could
> > share my source with anybody interest
> I have been working on a software project which I intend to license under the
> QPL. I have decided to choose this type of license because I thought I could
> share my source with anybody interested in seeing it and also charge
> non-commercial users such as ISP's, etc... with a fee to recover s
Bruce wrote:
>
> I think it's possible to create any number of licenses that violate the
> spirit of the OSD while following the letter.
Well, I hope that statement is strong enough encouragement to the
present board members to reject licenses on spirit. Bruce, did
you read the discussion of t
I think the FSF already evaluated this license on their page:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
Under the section, "GPL-Compatible, Free-Software licenses"
There is:
The License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions.
This is a free software license and is compat
David Johnson wrote:
> As long as I obey the law with regards to copyright, then it is
impossible
> for me to violate the GPL. Thus I am safe in not agreeing to it.
That means that you never download the software
from a distribution site, or copy it off borrowed media,
and never redistribute
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I am new to this list and have just looked in the archive to find some
pointers to my problem.
.However couldn't find much, therefore I am not sure if this is the
correct list to discuss this. Please let me if it isn't so I can go away
qu
12 matches
Mail list logo
