> From: Forrest J Cavalier III [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> The GPL does not meet their definition of "Potentially
> viral software."
>
>
[DJW:] That depends on whether the examples of
software with which it may not be distributed form
a, non-exclusive, part of the definition of
"Potentially
On Thursday 28 June 2001 04:17 pm, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> > What happens if I read the MS EULA and disagree with it? How can I be
> > prevented from making archival copies and reverse engineering it?
>
> The standard argument MS will make is that if you have actually read the
> agreement and
> On Wednesday 27 June 2001 08:27 pm, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> > First, you will almost certainly be held to the reasonable
> > terms of a shrink-wrap agreement accompanying any of the common,
> > widely-available, commercial software packages. Nobody on
license-discuss
> > can claim to be i
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 08:27 pm, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> First, you will almost certainly be held to the reasonable terms of a
> shrink-wrap agreement accompanying any of the common, widely-available,
> commercial software packages. Nobody on license-discuss can claim to be
> ignorant of s
I'm confused by the various answers people gave to this question:
> > Do you know anyone who has _negotiated_ with Microsoft over
> > the terms of the
> > EULA? Personally, and IANAL, I don't consider the EULA to be
> > a contract. I
> > have not agreed to it. I have not signed it. I have n
Ravicher, Daniel B. scripsit:
> I'm genuinely curious how you would respond to someone who made these
> arguments against any one of the open source licenses since they too don't
> require a signature or for someone to give a verbal "OK". What if someone
> said "Just because the GPL says I'm und
"Ravicher, Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
> From: David Johnson
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > I would say that they're absolutely correct! The GPL even backs me up
> > on this one. If you don't agree with the license, then you don't have
> > to
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 06:15 pm, Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
> I agree: people can accept a license or abide by copyright law. But, I
> must have phrased my question incorrectly because that wasn't my issue. I
> was responding to your statement that EULA's can not constitute contracts
> becau
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> I would say that they're absolutely correct! The GPL even
> backs me up on this
> one. If you don't agree with the license, then you don't have
> to abide by it,
> BUT you still have to abide by copyright law
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 05:01 pm, Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
> I'm genuinely curious how you would respond to someone who made these
> arguments against any one of the open source licenses since they too don't
> require a signature or for someone to give a verbal "OK". What if someone
> said "
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
> I'm genuinely curious how you would respond to someone who made these
> arguments against any one of the open source licenses since they too don't
> require a signature or for someone to give a verbal "OK". What if someone
> said "Just because the
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> Do you know anyone who has _negotiated_ with Microsoft over
> the terms of the
> EULA? Personally, and IANAL, I don't consider the EULA to be
> a contract. I
> have not agreed to it. I have not signed it. I ha
>-Original Message-
>From: Ravicher, Daniel B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 4:54 PM
>To: 'Lou Grinzo'; 'John Cowan'
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source
>
>
> >
Its interesting to me that no one has commented on the SCSL in the list of
"open source" licenses listed as "viral" by M$. Actually the SCSL is
NOT open source (never has been) and is more similar to M$'s own
"shared source" program (which Sun sees as a "me too" first step on
M$ part to distr
> From: Ravicher, Daniel B. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> You are right that broader language increases potential litigation risk to
> those who accept it, but this risk is nothing but another cost that may/
> should be considered when deciding whether to enter into the license.
>
[DJW:] How m
As far as I understand English, this means absolutely nothing.
Part by part...
>
> (c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are
> conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or
> in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defi
D]]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 4:54 PM
To: 'Lou Grinzo'; 'John Cowan'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source
> -Original Message-
> From: Lou Grinzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> But the more impor
On Monday 25 June 2001 08:41 am, Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
> Perhaps the biggest would be the antitrust laws. The Sherman Act doesn't
> allow parties to negotiate agreements which have a net-anticompetitive
> effect on the relevant market.
Do you know anyone who has _negotiated_ with Microsof
On Monday 25 June 2001 07:14 am, John Cowan wrote:
> Proprietary licenses can insist that you use their product only while
>
> standing on one foot. Whether you buy such a product is up to you.
They can insist on it, but I seriously doubt the validity of it.
--
David Johnson
_
Ravicher, Daniel B. scripsit:
> I have to agree with John.
Hey, IANAL, so when a Real Lawyer agrees with me on the law, I'm doing okay!
"Possession is said to be nine points of the law, *but that's not saying
how many points the law might have.*"
-- my father the law professor
--
Jo
> -Original Message-
> From: Lou Grinzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> But the more important issues, I think, is what's up with MS
> and this "in
> conjunction with" phrasing. I can't believe that MS's
> lawyers don't realize
> how vague that statement is, which makes it sound suspi
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:41 AM
To: 'John Cowan'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source
I have to agree with John. Generally, licensors can offer any restriction
they wish to a potential licensee who can then dec
NY, NY 10019
p. 212.315.8032
f. 212.586.7878
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.brobeck.com/
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:14 AM
To: Lou Grinzo
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source
L
Lou Grinzo wrote:
> Could you say they
> can only use the software if they had pancakes for breakfast and are wearing
> blue socks?
Proprietary licenses can insist that you use their product only while
standing on one foot. Whether you buy such a product is up to you.
--
There is / one art
This is bordering on the bizarre, IMO. I bet the lawyers will have a field
day deciding what "in conjunction with" means. (On the same disk?
Dynamically linked? Statically linked? In the same archive, even if it's
unrelated software? From the same ftp directory?)
In more general terms I'm al
25 matches
Mail list logo
