Area 51 » Professional

161

followers

closed as not a real proposal by Robert Cartaino♦ May 7 at 15:07

This proposal will not result in a useful, productive, or viable Q&A site.

This proposal is now in the Commitment phase — example questions are locked!

60 Example Questions (7 closed)

active oldest votes

up vote 23 down vote

added by George Edison Jun 4 '10 at 3:56

up vote 22 down vote

added by Robert Harvey Jun 4 '10 at 4:16

Why do you care if it is a frivolous patent. I take frivolous as meaning it should be struck out as non-valid. – txwikinger Jul 9 '10 at 15:00

@txwikinger: You take it correctly. A frivolous patent is one that is taken out, not to protect an idea so that the patent holder can innovate, but to simply prevent others from using that idea, and charging them a license fee if they do want to use it. digitalmajority.org/forum/t-217364 – Robert Harvey Aug 18 '10 at 22:25

Well.. I define "frivolous patent" as a patent that is not enforceable, because while it was granted, it would certainly be rejected by a court. – txwikinger Aug 19 '10 at 14:21

up vote 22 down vote

added by David Basarab Jun 4 '10 at 14:32

The body of the question would have th license text. – David Basarab Jun 4 '10 at 14:32

"Explain this license to me using a simple if/else or switch/case statement that i understand". – slugster Jun 7 '10 at 2:16

I'd reword the question to "Can someone explain the <license name> in plain English?" – Tim Murphy Jun 18 '10 at 9:48

What if it's a custom license? I liked the question as proposed by David. – BrunoLM Aug 30 '10 at 23:28

up vote 20 down vote

added by Robert Harvey Jun 4 '10 at 4:16

up vote 20 down vote

added by Robert Harvey Jun 4 '10 at 4:19

IIRC some bittorrent authors went through this situation - while the software could be used for legit purposes, the majority of users used it for illegal purposes. Authors need to know how to insulate themselves from liability for what users do. – slugster Jun 7 '10 at 2:13

This is a very broad question. Theoretically anybody can sue anybody without any merit. However, most of the times such suits will not go very far. I think more specifics would be necessary for a meaningful discussion. – txwikinger Jul 9 '10 at 15:03

@txwikinger I would believe it to mean "Would such a lawsuit hold up in court" but I agree it is vague as written. – Rixius Aug 24 '10 at 16:43

up vote 14 down vote

added by Kensai Jun 4 '10 at 3:55

	Ah yes... I remember this from StackOverflow. – George Edison Jun 4 '10 at 3:56
	Yeah, a lot of "I'm not a lawyer" and "don't seek legal advice on Stack Overflow" made me propose this. – Kensai Jun 4 '10 at 4:00
	stackoverflow.com/questions/1840847/… For reference – Kensai Jun 8 '10 at 21:57

up vote 13 down vote

added by Kensai Jun 4 '10 at 4:03

Funny, I was just asking myself this a few days ago. – Arda Xi Jul 8 '10 at 0:21

up vote 11 down vote

added by slugster Jun 7 '10 at 2:21

	If i write my software in the USA, the user downloads it from a server in Elbonia, and they pay for it via PayPal whose server is located in the Caymans, in which country is the sale deemed to have taken place? Have i broken any US trade embargo rules? – slugster Jun 7 '10 at 2:22
	I'd like to know the answer for this one. – Kensai Jun 9 '10 at 22:35
	Wow... that includes also multiple issues. I think this question needs more details in order to know what the issue is. Is there a question of product liability, trade laws, or contract law? – txwikinger Jul 9 '10 at 15:06
	@txwikinger: The point here is not to ask specific questions; that happens starting in the beta phase, considerably later. What we're doing here is sample questions to be sorted into on-topic and off-topic. Presumably, an actual question would include more details. – David Thornley Jul 9 '10 at 17:04
	@David Thornley: Well.. that is what I was commenting about. An actual question will have to have far more details (or hypothetical details), because otherwise it will be quite meaningless what can be answered. – txwikinger Jul 9 '10 at 18:53

up vote 11 down vote

added by Simon Nickerson Jun 9 '10 at 6:19

up vote 11 down vote

added by David Thornley Jun 16 '10 at 16:13

up vote 7 down vote

added by Simon Nickerson Jun 9 '10 at 6:21

That would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it? – Robert Harvey Jun 22 '10 at 22:07

up vote 7 down vote

added by David Thornley Jun 16 '10 at 15:12

up vote 6 down vote

added by George Edison Jun 4 '10 at 3:54

up vote 6 down vote

added by Evan Plaice Jun 23 '10 at 11:02

up vote 5 down vote

added by Robert Harvey Jun 4 '10 at 4:18

closed as off topic by Chris W. Rea, slugster, Simon Nickerson, David Thornley, Mr Shark Jun 23 '10 at 9:02

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

Hmmm, hard one. Only indirectly related to software (if so) . – Kensai Jun 4 '10 at 4:21

@Kenji: I haven't heard of this problem in other industries, presumably because anyone can make a software program with a computer and a lot of time, whereas the barrier to entry can be quite high in other industries. – Robert Harvey Jun 4 '10 at 4:31

This question is very dependent on jurisdictions. In Canada there is a Supreme Court Decision that makes such clauses in contract almost in every case unlawful. However, IIRC in Texas, courts did not have any problems with it. – txwikinger Jul 9 '10 at 14:57

up vote 5 down vote

added by Simon Nickerson Jun 9 '10 at 6:23

up vote 5 down vote

added by David Thornley Jun 16 '10 at 15:23

up vote 5 down vote

added by Simon Brown, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jul 16 '10 at 0:28

up vote 4 down vote

added by Robert Harvey Jun 4 '10 at 4:29

Read - softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/… – AVD Jun 18 '10 at 9:28

up vote 4 down vote

added by rlb.usa Jun 10 '10 at 16:32

up vote 4 down vote

added by Evan Plaice Jun 23 '10 at 11:01

up vote 4 down vote

added by Daniel Trebbien Jun 25 '10 at 20:10

up vote 3 down vote

added by Simon Nickerson Jun 9 '10 at 6:32

up vote 3 down vote

added by Evan Plaice Jun 23 '10 at 11:01

up vote 3 down vote

added by xenoterracide Jul 21 '10 at 6:54

up vote 2 down vote

added by Senseful Jun 17 '10 at 3:50

up vote 2 down vote

added by Evan Plaice Jun 23 '10 at 11:00

up vote 2 down vote

added by acrosman Jun 25 '10 at 20:17

up vote 2 down vote

added by Daniel Trebbien Jun 26 '10 at 12:08

up vote 2 down vote

added by Binoj Antony Jun 28 '10 at 5:21

up vote 2 down vote

added by Jasconius, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jul 16 '10 at 0:26

up vote 2 down vote

added by Witek Jul 16 '10 at 10:54

up vote 2 down vote

added by Midhat, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Aug 7 '10 at 14:36

up vote 1 down vote

added by Stu Thompson Jun 4 '10 at 5:32

closed as off topic by Robert Harvey, Chris W. Rea, slugster, Maxim Zaslavsky, Simon Nickerson Jun 9 '10 at 6:19

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

	But every other answer to a question on SO that hints about law gets answer "go find a lawyer" This seems like a natural next question. – MatthewMartin Jun 24 '10 at 1:55
	If you specify a region, then it's too regional - plus this sort of information falls out of date regularly, so Google really would be a better resource. – Erik Forbes Jul 9 '10 at 14:02
	For reference stackoverflow.com/questions/613396/… – Dana the Sane Aug 18 '10 at 19:50

up vote 1 down vote

added by Evan Plaice Jun 23 '10 at 10:59

	Well, the logo holds a 'tm' sign (opensource.org) so the question might be inappropriate – Andrew Jul 13 '10 at 4:08
	'Open Source Initiative' does but the term 'Open Source' doesn't. It's actually an issue that has been discussed in depth. Here are a few resources opensource.org/node/163 and blip.tv/file/319044. – Evan Plaice Jul 14 '10 at 5:13
	Oh, I didn't know that, thanks, Evan! – Andrew Jul 15 '10 at 1:04