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
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
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
Sorry about that. I accidently sent the message while it was incomplete...
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 06:04:47PM -0800, Chris D. Sloan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:59:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
> > contract of
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 08:59:21PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
> contract of adhesion (one-sided) as a Microsoft EULA.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 06:45:54PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> David Johnson scripsit:
>
> > A menu at
David Johnson scripsit:
> A menu at a restaurant clearly lays out the "terms" of the contract: a
> particular price in exchange for a particular item. The fact that you pay fo
> the item after you have used it does not make it very much different from any
> other commercial transaction.
Not
On Saturday 17 November 2001 05:59 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
> contract of adhesion (one-sided) as a Microsoft EULA.
A menu at a restaurant clearly lays out the "terms" of the contract: a
particular price in exchange for
David Johnson scripsit:
> The current
> legal climate that allows licenses to unilaterally declare that an agreement
> is in place is anti-civilization.
*shrug*
As I said, action can give consent, and a restaurant menu is just as much a
contract of adhesion (one-sided) as a Microsoft EULA.
--
On Friday 16 November 2001 07:04 am, Humphreys, Noel wrote:
> David, you're saying that, fundamentally, open-source licensing simply
> doesn't work under US law. I don't understand why you think that you can
> get a judge to declare that you may simply disregard the license. Would
> you please
uctions, but, without regard to the DMCA, copyright
law does limit unnecessary or extra copying, public performance and derivative works,
all of which could be thought of as "use."
-----Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 2:4
> Not at all. Note the term "use the software"; copyright law
> doesn't limit uses (except for DCMA). Developers think of
> "using software", especially libraries, as incorporating it
> into their own works, but that is not the kind of "use"
> meant here.
Isn't it that the GPL covers mainly red
Humphreys, Noel wrote:
> David Johnson wrote:
>
>> In the case of the GPL, and most other OSS licenses, I >>can
>> completely ignore the license, place a full page ad >in the NYT
>> saying "I Disagree", get an official judicial >decree that I have
>> not agreed, and STILL be able to use >t
why you think
that? How did you reach a conclusion like that?
Noel
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:50 PM
To: John Cowan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD compliant shareware
On Thursday 15 November 2001 07:15
On Thursday 15 November 2001 07:15 am, John Cowan wrote:
> > Just because some license declares that I have agreed to it does
> > not make it so.
>
> In the case of the GPL, it says "If you agree to these rules, you may do
> these things. If you don't agree, you are not bound, but you can't do
>
David Johnson wrote:
> If I have not agreed to a license then I have not agreed to the license.
True enough, but assent can be inferred from actions; it need not be
verbal or explicit. The act of ordering food in a restaurant is assent
to a contract which obliges you to pay for it.
IANAL, TI
On Wednesday 14 November 2001 12:06 pm, Humphreys, Noel wrote:
> Signatures are not always necessary for formation of contracts. Software
> license arrangements fit comfortably within normal contract analysis
> patterns, and courts treat them that way. It's a mistake to think courts
> would not
Forrest J. Cavalier III writes:
> 2. You may compile this into an executable form, or modify your
> copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming
> a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
> modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
ax - 212.872.1002
590 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OSD compliant shareware
> -Original Message-
> From: For
> -Original Message-
> From: Forrest J Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:52 AM
> Subject: RE: OSD compliant shareware
>
>
> > Okay. But my point was that the copyright holder can grant
> > portions of his
> Okay. But my point was that the copyright holder can grant
> portions of his rights under copyright without obtaining
> the signature of the recipient(s), while usage rights require
> a contract.
>
Do you think the GPL creates a contract?
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:07 AM
> Subject: Re: OSD compliant shareware
>
>
> Samuel Reynolds wrote:
>
>
> > In general, the right to *use* the work is implied by
> &g
Samuel Reynolds wrote:
> In general, the right to *use* the work is implied by
> ownership of a copy of the work, and limited to the
> copy of the work that one owns.
Right enough.
> For example, paintings
> (with a very few, contractually-obligated exceptions)
> can be displayed publically o
> -Original Message-
> From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:01 PM
> Subject: OSD compliant shareware
>
[snip]
> I am writing in the hopes that you could share
>- insights into the creation of the
* Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04 05:33]:
> It's been pointed out that:
>
> 1. The OSD is not written in statutory language.
> 2. That it says what you _can't_ do rather than what you can and thus makes
>it easy to find loopholes, because there is an unbounded set of activities
>
Bruce Perens scripsit:
> I haven't read the decision in MAI vs Peak,
In brief: it said that a computer maintenance company (neither owner nor licensee)
couldn't run proprietary OS software, already installed, for hardware testing
purposes, because that involved making copies; the 117 safe harbor
> 117 protection would not apply. (See the footnote 5.)
>"5. Since MAI licensed its software, the Peak customers do not qualify
> as "owners" of the software and are not eligible for protection under
> 117."
>
> This means the copying of the pr
s software, the Peak customers do not qualify
as "owners" of the software and are not eligible for protection under
117."
This means the copying of the program into RAM is governed by the terms
of the license.
I have written what I think is an OSD compliant shareware li
27 matches
Mail list logo
