> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 September 2001 00:27
>
> Secondly, assuming that there is still a backlog of some degree, is
> there anything that I, as a newbie to this group but a reasonably
> legalese-savvy and intelligent open-source advo
> -Original Message-
> From: Rod Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 14 September 2001 23:20
>
>
> Mai v. Peak case is still good law. Today, a copyright holder may control
> the RAM copy of a software copyright-protected work. The fact that a
> copyright holder can control his or he
m anywhere else (generally) - if they do not exercise these
rights the GPL does not come into it. If they do, they must abide by the conditions.
End pointless summary and clarification of previous points.
SamBC
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>I don't pretend to fully understand your 'movement'. I konw the principle
>behind copytleft: it is a means to an end. But as I understand it, within
>your belief that everyone is free to copy software, there are restrictions on
>further use and a flat fee is payable. Am I misguided. You do no
IANAL and all that jazz...
>>
>>Copyright law does state that the copyright holder does not perforce
>>reserve
>>the right to "use" the work, however that may apply to the work. They may
>>not forbid people to read a book, but they may forbid them to read it in
>>public. They may not forbid pe
> -Original Message-
> From: Humphreys, Noel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> Copyright law empowers an author to restrict others from copying the
> work. A user therefore wants the license to allow the user to copy
> the work. In software terms, copying occurs when the user's hard
> dr
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > A small group of people who make a commitment to
> > the job would, over a short period, focus upon one
> > license and provide a report summarising there
> > views and those expressed on license-discuss.
>
>Nothing is stopping anyone from doing this now, and re
>http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3733:200108:lmhpmlehbejjkloffohl
>http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3735:200108:ajlgmjcdbmmllniijbba
I for one will have a look at them when I have
time (like when I'm not at work)
> > "Members briefly bandied about a suggestion to
> > form v
be we can do a test drive, and try to organize a report, to get a fell
>for it.
>SamBC, Chris, and I have expressed our availability to participate, in a
>Focus Group.
>I think we should try to organize a Report Template, if you are interested
>in doing,
>such a test drive, se
>I don't have a suggestion for improving things (I'm not sure anything is
>actually broken) but, putting more people in the way of a decision is *not* a
>good thing.
All this suggestion does is reduce the amount of thought that would need to go into
decisions by the board. They would make a f
>> > 2) A set of smaller focus groups, handling one
>> > license at a time, and reviewing license-discuss
>> > feedback. Possibly with seperate mailing lists,
>> > and only 3-5 members. focus1 thru
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], for example. This would
>> > also allow the board and focus groups to sugge
>YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ
>THIS LICENSE, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND
>CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, DO
>NOT USE THE SOFTWARE.
IANAL, but my understanding from this list, and otehr
I would like to pick up on a couple of points to
this list, and to the OSI:
"Board member Russ Nelson says that people who
are complaining should put forth more effort to
help the board by fulfilling the purpose of the
license-discuss list: to discuss the merits of
submissions and offer sug
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 29 August 2001 21:44
>
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, SamBC wrote:
>
> > > I guess we're reading it differently - "dedicated to . . . the OSD,
> > > spe
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 29 August 2001 21:37
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, SamBC wrote:
>
> How about the title? I'm not saying that the general principles don't
> apply to free documentati
pay any
> attention to it. While I don't think it's intended to specifically
> exclude documentation, I think it *is* intended to specifically
> address software.
as I say in another email, obvious rewording sorts out all the probs I can
see...
SamBC
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew C Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > Linux From Scratch is not a standard... are you confusing it with
> > the FHS?
>
> Hmm. Yes. I've never heard of Linux From Scratch.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ - have a look, it's very good, and very
ef
>> In Europe at least, software under patent is legal fact, not opinion.
>> Software processes are not patentable except as a part of an overall
>> non-software process - each case seperately considered.
>
>See what I wrote above - "*should* software methods be patentable..."
>In Europe, there's
>[would you mind wrapping your lines?]
Unfortunately I can only use this email account from my ISPs rather poor webmail ATM.
Normal service will be resumed when I get a chance to go home to my own computer (I've
only had PC access at work lately).
>The LFS isn't documentation, it's a document
>Where have I demanded it? I've said "it's not appropriate according to
>the stated goals of the OSI" - anyone can read the main web page and
>see it's so.
I have to see that it's a matter of opinion. OSI Certification Mark applies only to
software packages. Doesn't say anything that OSI only
Can we have an answer from the OSI board as to the applicability of the OSD to
documentation licenses before anything is put on the web pages please?
It seems a contentious issue, as non-package documentation seems quite key to the
world of open source.
SamBC
pen.
but modify with patches is.
>I provided two suggestions - but I still don't think his needs will be
>served by us.
and you are in a position to make that judgement?
>They would be useful, but I don't think that they are vital, nor
>relevant here.
this is a list to discuss licensing, why not? I think they woule serve a more clear
and present need & purpose than a glut of software licenses...
SamBC
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Yes. And it's that subset that is of interest to the Free SOFTWARE and
> Open Source SOFTWARE community. Not the set of documents specifically
> outside that subset.
Is it not plausible, though, that some docu
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> The OSI does not approve documentation licenses, only software licenses.
Is this mentioned anywhere on the OSI webpages? I ask only because this may
explain the lack of any action for a particularly long period of
hange to an established license.
I don't represent OSI at all.
SamBC
e, I doubt
> whether an ASP
> or a "web-app" presents a case for a loophole in the GPL.
My understanding was that copyright law allows that copying 'necessary for
normal use' is not considered copying under copyright law.
IANAL, but I'm sure I read this somewhere (in a legal document or quotation,
IIRC)
SamBC
L PROTECTED]]
>
> begin SamBC quotation:
>
> > I think this would be a bad thing, but I agree that the OSI needs to
> > either get their act together *or* stand down and dissolve or find a
> > new mission.
>
> I cannot help noticing that you, unlike Matthew Weigel, have not
&
not handle things
> to everyone's satisfaction, but at least they handle things, and LISTEN
> to the community while doing so.
I think this would be a bad thing, but I agree that the OSI needs to either
get their act together *or* stand down and dissolve or find a new mission.
My two penn'orth.
SamBC
'adverts' when the program is run,
Bob's prog must still display these adverts.
IANAL, but this seems relatively clean-cut (as anything legal can be) to me.
SamBC
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> >
> > Wrong. If you are the license holder, you are free to re-license as you
> > see
> >
> [DJW:] I assume a typ
IANAL, but my understanding, at least here in the UK, is that when no
jurisdiction is specified the licensee may choose. I could easily be wrong,
but that is what have previously been lead to believe.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* (and
only you, or those expressly given an alternative license permitting them to
do so) can make a new version non-GPL.
SamBC
in
> Armonk, N.Y.
In the US is it necessary to specify a state who's law will be sued, as the
contract law varies greatly. I could be wrong, IANAL.
SamBC
would tend to agree - however, IANAL, but I have heard it said by
people on this list who may be more knowledgeable, that requiring
private modifcations to be made public may be unenforceable under law. I
have no idea myself, but this came up in a similar discussion a few
months ago, IIRC, so I thought it worth bringing up...
SamBC
o claim it is Open Source, as it is clearly
not
SamBC
ill be updating the site as and when (as sourceforge don't make it
very easy - it was supposed to be a cronjob to copy from CVS, but that
stopped working).
Any more comments than those received before, or obvious corrections,
please come out with them.
SamBC
Title: simpleLinux Open Documenta
- so a
system in which computers are used in control will be covered by patent,
but a system which is contained entirely of and within a computer
software system is non-patentable.
IANAL
SamBC
till are (eg The Royal
Mail/Consignia) - and there's not many of these!!
SamBC
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Someone could attempt to secure a patent on the code after it was
released
> using the GPL. Assuming a patent was granted, the patent holder could
then
> stop the distribution of the code by requiring the payment of a
r
- Original Message -
From: "SamBC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ravicher, Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Germany]
> - Original Message -
> F
- Original Message -
From: "SamBC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dave J Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Germany]
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dave J Woolley" <[EMAIL PR
OF PURCHASE + reasonable expectations, so a
toothbrush falling apart after a week is included, a stereo dying after
time of no mechanical stress within a month or so (usually they say 90
days) is covered, three years is not, so they sell these extended
warranties, which are more or less actually an insurance policy.
SamBC
that the rest of the world does not provide these
automatic warranties, it really does. At least that puts the UK as a
world leader in *one* respect... shame about all the others...
SamBC
ee of charge. And the vendor is not liable, the
orginator is...
>
> This are two different issues.
Depends on jurisdiction, hence the discussion...
>
> Angelo
>
> SamBC wrote:
> >
> > > --
> > > Von: SamBC[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Ge
- Original Message -
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SamBC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Germany
> SamBC wrote:
>
>
> > It
- Original Message -
From: "Alexander Eichler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi all,
>
>
> Under German law there are a couple of problems with Open Source
Licensing,
> e.g. it is impossible under German law to have no liability for Open
Source
> Software. On the other hand, GPL says that there
The comment was ironic, to make that self-same point. We can't look at
the letter of it, but at the feelings of the community which supports
the concept... and the irony is directed at IntraDAT...
SamBC
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew J Bromage" <[EMAIL PROTECT
The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of
people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against
those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license
fee.
SamBC
- Original Message -
From: "Manfred Schmid" <[EM
- Original Message -
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What if, however, as in my case, you are writing standalone
> > documentation to software you did not produce,
>
> The same applies. If the software can be changed under given
conditions,
> it should be possible to change t
DL is suitable for all...
http://www.simpleLinux.org/legal/sLODL.html
SamBC
he controlling organisation is impossible to confuse
with original text. It also provides protection against
misrepresentation when people quote it.
I like it anyway - see what you think...
SamBC
- Original Message -
From: "David Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: &quo
K, the statute of
> limitations is much more than the 2 years implied by clause
> 7.4. I don't know enough about business taxation, but I'm
> uneasy about what is in this document. Trusts are also
> a complex area of the law, and taxation. All with vary with
> country.
That being the major difficulty
SamBC
Basically, the GPL-related info in the license is one big paradox. I think
that is pretty clear.
SamBC
- Original Message -
From: "Nelson Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dave J Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "License-Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTE
- Original Message -
From: "SamBC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Only one I saw was GNU FDL which was even less simple, and had some
clauses
> I disliked.
>
> sLODL was as simple as I could make it while making it legally watertight
> (AFAIK, as IANAL). I did res
- Original Message -
From: "Dave J Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > http://www.simplelinux.org/legal/sLODL.html
> >
> > Opinions on OS-ness and legality, and general good/badness, pls
> >
is 'simple' that isn't what the name
signifies, it signifies it is originated by the Movement for simpleLinux,
which aims to simplify Linux usage, but the license is a legal document so
can't be that simple)
SamBC
- Original Message -
From: "David Johnson"
I will be away and unavailable from about 11PM BST on Friday 29 Sept 200,
for a minimum of five days, and a maximum of two weeks. Ho-hum. Carry on
discussing anything, even to do with me, in my absence. I will try to get
back to everything when I get access back.
Thanks all.
, and general good/badness, pls
SamBC
should have relevant disclaimers about jurisdicitons (as the
matter varies)
>
> You probably want a real lawyer to write this, although they will
> probably want to stress the problems, rather than the solutions.
Will Larry Rosen do it perhaps?
>
> IANAL
Me neither (as I said earlier)
> --
> --- DISCLAIMER -
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
> except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
SamBC
ssed), so I expect that the OSI
Board will request a few changes and then approve it, if Lucent are
flexible.
IANAL & IANA OSI Board Member
SamBC
Aside from that, first-come-first-served is by all accounts most
fair
SamBC
little bit of extra work even if it
slows down processing, OSI-people?
SamBC
The 'license' statement sounds to me (IANAL) as though use and distribution
in all forms is okay provided that the fonts are not altered, and that you
may use the trademarked names of the fonts only to identify the
font/typeface.
IANAL, but it seems logical to me.
SamBC
>
Sometimes I overstate I guess...
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, SamBC wrote:
>
>
> The Redhat boxed set contains proprietary and non-redistributable
> software (and some proprietary but still r
one of the points of free
software and opensource!!
SamBC
uot;beer"
Yes, people are free to do what they want with it - including copy & sell
it, as long as it is all GPL'd, as it is in many distributions (eg Debian)
SamBC
ned.
> If so, I would add a sentence to that effect.
>
And doing so, accept implicitly that this disclaimer would be invalid in
many jurisdictions. Oh well, it's one we can't win I guess...
SamBC
wether the license is Open
Source, not Free Software.
The word is important, in certain ways, and should be left in with the
addition of a definition, or it should be removed if the authors will not
accept this
SamBC
en it's not.
>
> I would hope some other people comment on this, because I think it's an
> important question of what subject matter is important to discuss (that's
> the only reason I haven't taken this off the list).
I believe that the term reasonable should be included, with some definition
describing it as any fee which the purchaser is willing to pay.
SamBC
or another
I agree - there should be some ways for free software developers to protect
themselves, without limiting the freedom of the software... we ought to
discuss viable alternatives to prohibiting use.
SamBC
Why not specify in the license what 'reasonable' means. I would simply state
(as I have seen)
"You will not be required at any point to justify a charge as reasonable to
anyone except the party(ies) whom you are charging"
SamBC
> -Original Message-
> Fr
are not at issue here.
>
Not sure... certainly, it does not affect users who are not distributing
commercially, but that then restricts and differentiates between forms of
use. Not against the OSD, I believe, but not favourable certainly.
> > > Contributors shall have unrestricted, nonexclusive, worldwide,
> > > perpetual, royalty-free rights, to use, reproduce, modify, display,
> > > perform, sublicense and distribute Your Modifications, and to grant
> > > third parties the right to do so, including without limitation as
> > > a part of or with the Licensed Software;
> >
> > This is a variant of the NPL asymmetry: you get limited rights to
> > use their code, but they get unlimited rights to use your changes.
> > While this does not by itself disqualify the license as a free
> > software license (if the other problems were corrected), it is
> > unfortunate.
>
> Agreed.
And I third that...
SamBC
This is a good point. I am surprised it has never been raised before...
SamBC
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 July 2000 17:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: prohibiting use that would result in death or personal inju
73 matches
Mail list logo
