On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:21:13PM -0400, Paul D. Robertson wrote:
> That point is now obvious. Most licenses have a default deny policy,
> modification was never had a permit line. It still doesn't have a permit
> line, so the access list hasn't changed, it's just easier for those who
> can't see the default deny at the bottom to figure it out.
Depends on how you define "use source code".
> It's his code, and his license, I'm not sure why everyone sems to want to
> take them both away from him.
Nobody wants to. If he will insis on his statement everybody will comply and
i am sure projects like openBSD will have to kick the source out of the
project.
> * To me, the sentence "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms
> * are permitted" clearly allows for modification of the source code...
>
> Doesn't seem to have a good basis for legal standing. It's not *clear* to
> me that the specific license phrase equates modification with usage
How do you use source code?
What troubles me most is, that he uses a normal BSD advertising clause "do
not remove the copyright". why is he doing it if in the first place
modifications was never allowed anyway...
> What's not clear to me is if fixing a bug isn't disallowed by the current
> license, and that's more worrysome to me than if it's an official Open
> Source application. A seperate section allowing local-only modification
> would make this a much better license from my perspective.
Actually those local only modifications are allowed in some countries for
commercial software.. the question is, what is with non-commercial software
:)
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD eckes@irc +497257930613 BE5-RIPE
(O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
