--- Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
> >While this license probably is open source, it is
> >misnamed (by using the term "BSD" in its name
>
>Of course this isn't a BSD license; if I wanted a
> BSD license, I'd be using the BSD license.
T
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 3:53 pm, Colin Percival wrote:
> At 15:37 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
> >OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
> >selling or giving away the software [...]
> >
> >License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work
> >is distributed mus
> I didn't define "Definitions", either.
> I have no legal training,
No legal training required for discussion here. And
according to Larry, if you have legal training, there
is some discussion you should not be doing here. :-)
> but I thought it would be clear that
> "Modification and
At 11:19 12/03/2002 -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>2. Except possibly for the copyleft clause 4c, the license
>fails to state that the terms apply to everyone receiving
>a copy of the software.
Is this a problem? I rather assumed that such a statement
would be included in the copyrigh
OSD-related issues that I see
1. Someone already pointed out the OSD #1 issue. If
the license doesn't explicitly permit selling copies,
then copyright law reserves the right to the author.
2. Except possibly for the copyleft clause 4c, the license
fails to state that the terms apply to everyone
Colin Percival scripsit:
> I don't personally see any problem here -- section 2 grants you
> some rights, section 3 grants you some rights, section 4 grants
> you some rights -- but would people be happier if I explicitly
> pointed out that the three sections cover different actions,
> and obviou
At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
>While this license probably is open source, it is
>misnamed (by using the term "BSD" in its name). It is
>not a BSD license because it does NOT always "permit
>improvements to be used wherever they will help,
>without idealogical or metallic constraint.
phil hunt scripsit:
> My reading of the license and the OSD suggests to me that it
> isn't.
>
> OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software [...]
>
> License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work
> is distributed must express
At 15:56 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
>On Tuesday 12 March 2002 1:16 am, Colin Percival wrote:
> >To start with, the LGPL only applies to libraries.
>
>That's not true, you can license any code with it.
Allow me to rephrase: The LGPL is intended for application
to libraries. (And d
At 15:37 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
>OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
>selling or giving away the software [...]
>
>License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work
>is distributed must expressly prohibit the distribution of
>further derivative works.
>
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 1:16 am, Colin Percival wrote:
> At 11 Mar 2002 20:57:24 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] resent my email to this
>
> mailing list and added the line:
> >[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ]
>
>No, I'm not.
>
>To start with, the LGPL only applies
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 4:07 am, Andy Tai wrote:
> While this license probably is open source,
My reading of the license and the OSD suggests to me that it
isn't.
OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software [...]
License, 3 (c): The licens
12 matches
Mail list logo
