- Forwarded message from Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:33:17 -0800
To: announce@apache.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
The Apache Software Foundation is
I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
not.
=
== DO NOT PANIC! This is a draft for discussion purposes only. ==
==
BIG NOTICE: None of these licenses are official. They are all drafts.
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:03:55AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
not.
3.
How Apache went from a rather decent 5 clause license to the proposed
11 clause license is a mystery to me. I strongly suggest the license
be gone over with a fine toothed comb and searched for areas where it
can be made more general and less specific.
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Hi, I'm Marco Ghirlanda, Linux Advisor at the Virtual Reality and Multi
Media Park of Turin, Italy. (www.vrmmp.it).
We developed for our Open Source Lab (www.opensourcelab.it) a remastered
version of the Knoppix Live Cd, Medialinux, wich includes most ot the
audio, graphic and video software
[Follows set to debian-legal.]
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:22:31PM -0500, John Belmonte wrote:
If the library as a whole must be under GPL license, how is it
significant that parts of it were once under LGPL or on the public
domain? The purpose of the License field is to tell the user what
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 02:43:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
a single license apply to the work as a whole, as you say.
What do you mean by once under the LGPL or public domain? What
mechanism do you propose causes works to stop being licensed under the
LGPL, or withdrawn from the
Branden,
I don't disagree with anything you've stated regarding my sloppy
arguments. However, as you are implying on a public forum that I don't
grasp the subject matter of licenses, I'm going to defend myself a little.
I wrote, unfortunately, If the library as a whole must be under GPL
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then
any patent licenses granted by that
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003, Adam Warner wrote:
So you want companies to grant perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
fully paid-up and royalty free patent licenses that are completely
irrevocable even when another company is using their software and
suing them for software patent infringement?
What
10 matches
Mail list logo
