Ben Tilly wrote:
> Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
> distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license
> shall not require a royalty or other fee for
Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources. The
license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
Red Hat's
Nigel Tzeng wrote:
So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot redistribute
RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat?
[] But you can redistribute RHEL if you don't modify it. If you modify
it, apply a different trademark to distinguish it in the marketplace. No
So Larry and Ben, is RHEL is not open source because you cannot redistribute
RHEL without a trademark license from RedHat?
If an explicit patent grant is a requirement for open source should an explicit
trademark grant also be required? Does CPAL provide an implicit permission to
use
Looking at the open source definition, it should be able apply to any
license of any kind.
The argument is that the patent grant is not open source because the
inability to continue using the software after suing Facebook for patent
infringement is a "price". However you are unable to use the
OSD #7 has something to say about an "additional license" being needed for
software:
7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is
redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those
parties.
I assumed
On 12/6/16, 3:33 PM, "henrik.i...@gmail.com on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
wrote:
>The question isn't about patents or copyrights. The point is that taking
>an OSI approved license and making additions to it by adding a separate
>file
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Henrik Ingo
wrote:
Especially in this case, where it is debatable whether the patent
> grant adds or removes rights compared to plain BSD.
>
Inevitably so, since the BSD license family either grants no patent rights
(if you read it
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
> henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>>On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana
On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana
>wrote:
>> - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source
10 matches
Mail list logo