[DUG] Open source licences

Wed Dec 7 17:30:59 NZDT 2005

"you are saying that you abide by piracy"

I never said that so dont trying putting words in my mouth.

"Nothing is free unless you have a contract stating its free. Thats the default interpretation."

Rubbish

Grant

Leigh Wanstead wrote:

>Hi Kyley,
>
>I am monitoring this post too. ;-)
>
>I agreed all you said. But go to the court is very very dear for both party.
>
>Regards
>Leigh
>http://www.salenz.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz
>[mailto:delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz]On Behalf Of Kyley Harris
>Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2005 4:51 p.m.
>To: grant at sitedoc.com.au; NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
>Subject: Re: [DUG] Open source licences
>
>
>Yes, you are saying that you abide by piracy as being ok if not caught?
>
>Just because I release something for free to the public, doesn't mean I am
>allowing you to take it for the purpose of making a profit. Patenting an
>idea does
>not mean that you intend to charge for it. It means that you have decided
>on the correct
>path for your IT property to follow.
>
>The whole point of the license is to create large quanities of quality
>free software
>alternatives, not to allow people who cant do it themselves profit from
>the idea, by
>wrapping and selling to people who didn't know better.
>
>It is no different than finding a cure for cancer, and releasing the
>information
>as long as you don't charge for the cure. Its called helping mankind.
>If you tried to make a profit you'd be in court real fast.
>
>There are plenty of GPL cases in court who win. just follow the newspapers
>to see them.
>
>I would love to see someone recompile Linux with a new branding and call
>it DamnGood OS and
>sell it for $100 a copy. Does anyone seriously think Linus wouldn't see
>you in court?
>
>
>By the way. All newspapers do have copyrights. Infact all written word is
>copyright by default,
>and if you took that text from a newspaper and reprinted it within the
>legal boundaries of plagurism
>you'd be screwed there too.
>
>Being Free makes is worthless? then why would you want to use it. Its not
>free. It has a license which
>has conditions. Those conditions set a non-monetary worth on the work. Not
>everything is valued by dollars.
>Think of it like a priceless painting; not being able to price it does not
>make it worthless. You also cant
>make copies and sell it without permission either.
>
>As far as being unaware....... come on. If you find $100 bucks on the road
>you are legally obliged to hand it
>into the cops. I bet you don't, but you are breaking a law. Common Sense
>law. Nothing is free unless you have
>a contract stating its free. Thats the default interpretation.
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:55:35 +1300, Grant Brown <grant at sitedoc.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi to all,
>>
>>I have kept an eye on this thread with some interest, and whilst I am
>>not a lawyer I don't believe that open source licenses of any nature
>>would stand up in court.
>>
>>Nor do I think much of click through license agreements. You need a
>>written and signed contract not an action to form the basis of an
>>agreement.
>>
>>After the agreement has been enacted by way of signing by all parties
>>then yes actions matter but not before. This certainly applies to
>>construction contracts, however OS's may be different.
>>
>>Being open source the code in question by default is placed in a public
>>forum, which I would have thought negates the license.
>>
>>If that were not the case then every newspaper in the world would
>>attract a license agreement.
>>
>>Being open source (ie free) then the code has no value so there can be
>>no loss by the owner, hence no claim for loss.
>>
>>The other interesting point is that if you are going to place code in
>>open source, then why place any kind of agreement on it at all, kind of
>>defeats the purpose.
>>
>>Also where does the agreement start, anyone could just say the code was
>>given to them and did not download it from the owners site and hence not
>>agreed to any sort of license.
>>
>>Has any open source license ever been tested in court, it would be
>>interesting to read the transcript.
>>
>>As I said before I'm not a lawyer, but I think one would be very hard
>>pressed to run a case based upon open source code and some sort of
>>perceived loss due to a end user agreement.
>>
>>My personal view is that if something is provided as open source then
>>its open source, not open source with a huge "BUT" attached.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Kyley Harris
>+64-21-671821
>_______________________________________________
>Delphi mailing list
>Delphi at ns3.123.co.nz
>http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Delphi mailing list
>Delphi at ns3.123.co.nz
>http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>
>  
>

-- 
Regards,
Grant Brown

Product Development Manager
Phone : 02 4229 1185
Mobile : 0412 926 995
Email : grant at sitedoc.com.au
Web : www.sitedoc.com.au

SiteDoc - Easy to Use - Powerful Results

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ns3.123.co.nz/pipermail/delphi/attachments/20051207/94202382/attachment.html