Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> All, esp. Sam & Rick:
>
> Sorry to be pedantic, but after looking at the OSI-approved RPL, it is
> obvious it restricts internal use:
(Casting my mind back to figure out the connection to me:)
If memory serves, Stephen North raised a question abo
> "RM" == Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RM> Now, people here are generally (if somewhat vaguely)
RM> sympathetic to your desire to find a business model that works
RM> for you, because we're generally pleasant and agreeable
RM> people. But sooner or later we'll tend to
Bob Scheifler writes:
> APSL 1.2 seems to discriminate between distribution for research use
> and distribution for commercial use (by imposing different obligations).
Yes, it does, however in both cases the licensing satisfies the Open
Source Definition. It's like making boys use the boys room
Marius Amado Alves writes:
> (At the SDC we're drafting a new license. We're using the term "fair
> source" for internal work. I don't know if that's the term that will be
> exposed. Suggestions welcome. www.softdevelcoop.org)
I use "Source Available" to describe software where you can get th
All, esp. Sam & Rick:
Sorry to be pedantic, but after looking at the OSI-approved RPL, it is obvious
it restricts internal use:
1.2 "Deploy"... includes without limitation, any and all internal use or
distribution of Licesned Software within your business or organization other
than for research a
Thanks for the response.
My take on the discrimination against fields of
endeavor means that a license can't be restricted for
use in any particular industry.
The phrasing of term #6, as well as the written rationale for it,
seem to me to be broader than particular industry. The term itself
gives t
Thanks for the response.
Just in case this helps clarify things in terms of the APSL (can't speak
for the Reciprocal Public License, sorry)...
(My intent was not to knock specific licenses, but to give some
possible examples to help set context.)
The APSL 1.2 (currently now the APSL 2.0, which has
My take on the discrimination against fields of
endeavor means that a license can't be restricted for
use in any particular industry. I don't see where the
RPL does that. Everyone that enhances or modifies RPL
code is required to share their resulting code(if
they use it) with the world. Granted,
Looking at OSD #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor,
I had imagined that it meant, among other things, that the
license could not have one set of terms for commercial use and
a different set of terms for research use. Yet there appear
to be a few approved licenses that make such a discr
Looking at OSD #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor,
I had imagined that it meant, among other things, that the
license could not have one set of terms for commercial use and
a different set of terms for research use. Yet there appear
to be a few approved licenses that make such a discr
Dear All:
The Sleepycat license looks clear, short and to the point, essentially BSD + a
reciprocal clause.
Qns:
1. If I genericize the license and call it say a "Reciprocal BSD" license, would
I have a good chance to get it approved? (This might be useful for people who
desire a simpler version
11 matches
Mail list logo
