Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
You seem here to be saying Let's not worry about it. You'll get sued,
or you won't. There's no perfect answer, so don't bother trying to come
up with somewhat better answers.
That is not what I said, and very far from what I meant. And you
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
I think the point was [...]
I believe I was having a discussion with Chris Travers. Didn't I ask
you to kindly go away and chew up someone else's time?
___
License-discuss mailing list
-Original Message-
A truly independent open source software developer probably has nothing
to fear other than personal embarrassment. It is the larger companies,
including acquirers or consolidators of open source software and the
corporate users of that software, who need to
@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0
from OSI process
-Original Message-
A truly independent open source software developer probably has
nothing
to fear other than personal embarrassment. It is the larger
companies,
including acquirers
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
You seem here to be saying Let's not worry about it. You'll get sued,
or you won't. There's no perfect answer, so don't bother trying to come
up with somewhat better answers.
That is
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:20:58AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
I think the point was [...]
I believe I was having a discussion with Chris Travers. Didn't I ask
you to kindly go away and chew up someone else's time?
Yes, you *are* the sort of person
-Original Message-
I agree with you about the problem. I have repeatedly suggested that
Apache do code scans on its distributed software so that every downstream
customer doesn't have to do it. But we have neither the interest nor the
money to deal with hypothetical problems in a
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
Derrida's theories on text and meaning are entirely applicable to
legal agreements even if we pretend they aren't.
I note without special objection that you pretty much ignored my point and
moved the goalposts. No worries. I doubt you really
Rick Moen scripsit:
Out in the real world, we have to deal with shades of grey and lack
of perfect knowledge, which is why a wise person will not spend huge
amounts of time pondering whether you can get away with particular
types of deployments without having created an unauthorised
The fact that we have not resolved some questions doesn't mean that we
don't have /any/ bright lines. I have previously published guidelines
that would keep you far from any fuzzy issues, while allowing you to
build whatever you wish.
On 03/01/2012 07:42 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Which is as much
Rick;
I think you are missing one key point in your reply to me. In short:
Part of the point is to realize that the engineer's question is What
do I have to do to stay safe? How do I know if this license applies?
Any answer you can give to the engineer's question will be both
heavily
On 03/01/2012 08:02 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
How do I know if this license applies?
Just assume it does, because you don't really have to decide this
question to be safe.
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
Rick;
I think you are missing one key point in your reply to me.
I didn't miss that.
In short: Part of the point is to realize that the engineer's question
is What do I have to do to stay safe? How do I know if this license
applies?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 08:02 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
How do I know if this license applies?
Just assume it does, because you don't really have to decide this question
to be safe.
I am not at all sure that line works once you get
On 03/01/2012 08:32 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
I am not at all sure that line works once you get into trying to
bridge GPL'd and proprietary apps
Read
http://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/3801396/Bruce-Perens-Combining-GPL-and-Proprietary-Software.htm
Does it matter how I do this?
Very
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 08:32 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
I am not at all sure that line works once you get into trying to bridge
GPL'd and proprietary apps
Read
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 09:09 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
You seem to say do not link and thus repeat more or less what the FSF
says (and what Rosen spends a good time arguing against in his book, and he
is by no means alone--- at least
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
Any layman who wants to understand why this doesn't work needs only to
pick up any of Derrida's books at the corner used book store.
Anyone who cannot distinguish
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote:
On 02/26/2012 02:31 PM, David Woolley wrote:
The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are not
professional lawyers.
This is always in my thoughts when considering any Open Source license.
We can
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote:
Oh, bushwah. Any layman who wants to understand in even paranoid levels
of detail the major licences and has two hours to spare can pull down
the PDF of Larry Rosen's book free of charge, among other methods of
arriving
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
Any layman who wants to understand why this doesn't work needs only to
pick up any of Derrida's books at the corner used book store.
Anyone who cannot distinguish between the accessibility of Larry Rosen's
extremely lucid work and Jacques
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
Rick Moen wrote:
It's called 'realism'. The reason well written licences have an
irreducible complexity about them is that they are obliged to deal with
real legal issues, e.g., the way warranty disclaimers are required to be
The
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:41:01PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
On 02/26/2012 09:00 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
I suspect a better approach to understandable, legally well-formed
license production might be to get someone who wants a very simple
license to write it, and only *then* get the lawyers
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:08:17AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Chad Perrin:
Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is
realism instead of a more-restrictive license.
Mu. This request has nothing to do with what I said, and I just don't
have that time to
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:00:00AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting David Woolley:
I suspect that licences with lots of legalese discriminate against
medium size enterprises.
Oh, bushwah. Any layman who wants to understand in even paranoid levels
of detail the major licences and has two
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:15:51AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
If that has nothing to do with what you said, what you said must have
nothing to do with the points to which you replied.
This comment does not strike me as either logical or
On 2/26/12 5:31 PM, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote:
The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are not
professional lawyers.
This is why CC is liked in the creative community. That and a broad range
of licenses to meet a variety of needs.
On 02/27/2012 12:57 AM, David Woolley wrote:
The software analogy is flawed in that software has to be understood
by a machine and is written in a language with very precisely defined
semantics. Legal documents are written to be interpreted by a human
and, unfortunately, legal language is not
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
Please explain to me
No thank you. Please do have a pleasant day.
--
Cheers, 'LEGO' is the plural. The singular is 'Legum.'
Rick Moen -- FakeAPStylebook
r...@linuxmafia.com
On 02/26/2012 09:41 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
I had to help Bob Jacobsen, an Open Source developer who chose one of
those over-simple licenses, the Artistic License 1.0, written by Larry
Wall the Programmer. Bob had someone who both used his program in a
product without even attributing it to
Bruce Perens wrote:
The structure of laws, courts, and contracts is indeed a machine that
executes statements of rules. That it does so /fuzzily/ and through
human rather than machine elements is not necessarily a /flaw /of the
system, in that it is invariably asked to handle unforseen
[Moved to license-discuss, as this thread has become highly offtopic for
license-review.]
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
It doesn't help much that it seems like everyone working with lawyers
wants to produce horribly complex systems of license restrictions, so
that almost the only
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
[Moved to license-discuss, as this thread has become highly offtopic for
license-review.]
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
It doesn't help much that it seems like everyone working with lawyers
wants to produce horribly
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
(Cry me a river.)
By the way, your asshole-ish attitude is hilarious when you're addressing
something I didn't even say.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Rick Moen wrote:
It's called 'realism'. The reason well written licences have an
irreducible complexity about them is that they are obliged to deal with
real legal issues, e.g., the way warranty disclaimers are required to be
The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences
On 02/26/2012 02:03 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is
realism instead of a more-restrictive license.
When the terms are grants, or specifications of what must be granted in
derivative works.
attachment: bruce.vcf
smime.p7s
On 02/26/2012 02:31 PM, David Woolley wrote:
The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are
not professional lawyers.
This is always in my thoughts when considering any Open Source license.
We can fail these people in two ways:
1. Provide them with a license that
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 04:50:16PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
On 02/26/2012 02:31 PM, David Woolley wrote:
The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences
are not professional lawyers.
This is always in my thoughts when considering any Open Source license.
We can fail
On 02/26/2012 09:00 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
I suspect a better approach to understandable, legally well-formed
license production might be to get someone who wants a very simple
license to write it, and only *then* get the lawyers involved. While
you're at it, be prepared to make the lawyers
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
The pieces you don't like aren't there because anyone likes to put
them there or because the people who wrote the license are idiots.
There have been a lot of court cases in history. From those cases,
we know a number of things that go wrong in
40 matches
Mail list logo
