--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.aldor.org/AldorPublicLicense2_0.html > > is a modified BSD-style license which contains a "for non-commerical > use only clause" making it incompatible with GPL. This potentially > has an impact on the possibility of using and distributing Aldor as > part of Axiom unless Axiom were to adopt a compatible license, > however that would mean that Axiom would also become incompatible > with GPL.
Yep. > The only solution offered by Steven Watt was the possibility of > providing the Axiom developer with two or three separate downloads > and corresponding source code respositories, e.g. one for each of > GCL, Axiom and Aldor - each with separate and mutually incompatible > licenses. To completely build Axiom from source code then would > require that the developer or user to download the three components > separately and only combine them in the final build. If would be > possible to distribute a binary version of Axiom with Aldor for > non-commercial use-only provided that it was not built using a GCL > version of Lisp. Right. SBCL or CMUCL could probably be used for such a purpose, assuming anyone wanted to develop that direction. > Obviously discussion of these licensing conditions could get > complicated and technical in a legal sense and not of interest to all > Axiom developers so I would proposed that we continue the discussion > of this issue (if at all) only on the separate axiom-license email > list. Fair enough if we get into the nitty gritty, but one question here - is there anyone who is interested in using Aldor given this non-commercial clause? > There was also a short discussion of a similar nature about the legal > status of the name Axiom, e.g. is it a trademark or not. The general > conclusion was that if the name still has any status as a trademark > it would very likely be held by NAG. The proposal therefore was to > address this question to Mike Dewar. So you don't agree with Tim's analysis here? http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2007-07/msg00147.html I suppose there's no reason not to ask NAG, but clearly they aren't selling Axiom any longer and their commercial trademark HAS lapsed: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=nv64tg.4.1 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=nv64tg.4.2 >From that standpoint, I think Tim HAS established a clear common law right to the Axiom name, unless someone was using it before him - from the uspto FAQ http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Basic001 What are common law rights? Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use and registration. and from the Application section: Who may file an application? Only the owner of the trademark may file an application for its registration. An application filed by a person who is not the owner of the mark will be declared void. Generally, the person who uses or controls the use of the mark, and controls the nature and quality of the goods to which it is affixed, or the services for which it is used, is the owner of the mark. Tim's project in its original form clearly picked up the name after NAG's claim lapsed, unless I'm missing something. If he's actually gotten competent legal advice about the point, and both that advice and the FAQ section of uspto.gov seem to indicate the same thing... what am I missing? Is there a reason I'm not aware of that Tim WOULDN'T have the trademark? > There was no discussion about the recent fork of Axiom called FriCAS > except to note that open source licensing allows the creation of such > new projects and that this would also apply to the new release of > Aldor provided of course that it's licensing conditions were met. > Stephen Watt stated that he would "welcome" such a development in the > case of the Aldor project. That's probably a moot point, at least at the present time - why would anyone want to fork Aldor? My opinion is that the non-commercial restriction is a no-go - I would prefer to work with Steven on his new language. (Which I really should quit calling SPAD+ - maybe since the ADA implementation copped the A# name (I had forgotten about that) we could call a new SPAD for Axiom B# and the eventual improved user language B-Natural? Those are even sound-alikes for the purposes of the languages - "Be sharp" for rigorous math and "Be natural" for user interaction fits pretty well.) Cheers, CY ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
