"Carter Bullard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I have released some software under a modified IBM Public
> License. The powers that be at Debian Linux are stating
> that the license, and thus the IBM Public License, does not
> meet their definition of "free". I've included the Debian
> defin
Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, given that two messages bounced for a large number of people, I would
> wager that the problem was actually on the mail server side - a
> temporarily down DNS server perhaps, or resource problems, or what have
> you - and since they only affected
"Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "free software" is software that is licensed to you using terms that
> prohibit you from imposing a requirement of the payment of a fee on the
> right of recipients of the software to make copies or redistribute the
> software.
I don't agree. The t
"Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To me, this is the credo of the OSD. If we are to support the OSD, then the
> OSD should capture what the great majority of the software community means
> by the term "Open Source", and I suggest that for the great majority of the
> software communi
"Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So my question remains: Is the OSD as written too specific regarding its
> requirement that the source code be commonly and easily available to
> recipients of the software?
I'm not sure I entirely understand the question, but I think the
answer is
"Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems axiomatic to me that any license seeking to comply with the OSD
> must have explicit instructions detailing the responsibility of each party
> to the license (meaning anyone who distributes the software) to make the
> source available when t
"Smith, Devin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The GNU GPL is particularly difficult to interpret,
> probably because it was written by a non-lawyer.
The GPL was extensively reviewed by the FSF lawyers.
I personally have always found the GPL to be clear.
The main problem I've seen people have wi
"Lou Grinzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My solution is for some group of people (like us) to collectively assemble a
> list of every permutation of activity we can think of involving
> software--sell it modified/unmodified with/without source, linked/not linked
> with non-free/open SW, bundled
Eric Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My statement that Bob has all the rights which Andy has but does not
> have the requirement of distributing under the GPL is derived from
> David Johnson's argument about OSD #7 -- namely, that a recipient of
> Open Source software gains all of the rights
David Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It may or may not be the case that a clause obliging a user to pay a license
> fee would make a license non-compliant with the OSD.
Well, I kind of think it would. But the way to test that is to
propose a license which requires a license fee, and to
Eric Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > It may certainly be possible to have a registration fee for Open Source
> > software. I am not denying that. However, until such a time as the
> > registration fee is paid, the software cannot be considered
Angelo Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this mailing list would run much better if people here would try
> to understand that ther is still demand to ordinyry sell software. Not
> everynody is in the habit of living from Consulting contracts etc.
I think most people on this list u
"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Netscape was able to actively sell into those corporations in a very
> > interesting manner. "Since you already have our products and the
> > license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us."
>
> Support this statement with a citation
"Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If a court found that the first and third results Mr. Woolley enumerated
> were not derivative works (and thus could ignore the terms of the LGPL or
> the GPL for non-free code), I suspect that a case could be made to the FSF
> for abandoning the use
Dave J Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, since glibc is available as a dynamic library, most uses of glibc
> > do not conflict with the LGPL. The only way to conflict would be link
> > against the static version of glibc and distribute the resulting
> > binary without distributing the
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand your last sentence, and it sounds as if you might be
> making an important distinction. I am confused by your reference to linked
> to static version and "unlinked objects." How could both be occurring with
> the same libra
Dave J Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I had a look over the LGPL and it seems to have some interesting
> restrictions on derivative works that are almost certainly
> violated more often than obeyed, at least for the glibc.
> It seems to require that limited licesnses be given to modify
>
Jimmy Wales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be delightful if people could post sample documents for
> the transfer of copyright.
Here is the template which the FSF uses for large changes. It has
presumably been validated by the FSF's lawyer. Use at your own risk.
Ian
Below is an assig
Frank LaMonica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many developers working on open source projects
> today are funded directly or indirectly by commercial companies who plan
> to make money by selling all sorts of other added value.
While I generally sympathize, I think it is appropriate to note that
Red Hat has announced that Michael Tiemann has joined the OSI board:
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=RHAT&script=410&layout=-6&item_id=147351
I'm glad to hear it.
Ian
Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LaTex is "based on" Knuth's work in the sense that it implements the TeX
> design, but my understanding is that it is not a derivative work in a
> copyright sense, but rather was written separately by Leslie Lamport,
> and is now maintained by the LaTeX3 Pr
Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In any event, I've been tempted to start an information-clearinghouse
> site listing the leading formats for various types of data files
See http://www.wotsit.org/
It's probably not everything you want, but it's a start at what you
seem to describing.
Ia
Angelo Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The term O-P-E-N S-O-U-R-C-E was long n use before the OSI made a
> public, and now widly accepted definition of it.
No, it wasn't.
That was the whole point behind choosing the term ``open source.'' It
didn't carry any existing freight. See, e.g.
Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open
> source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? I think it
> is perverse to require me to offer my work as a donation to Microsoft and
> other game publishers just s
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But the clarification that is likely to happen will not
> > be to your liking.
>
> If the whole construct is clear and consistent, we all know where we
> stand. I would prefer that to the current situation.
The current situation is that we all know
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > If I want to run your program on several different computers, then
> > > > removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me.
> > > > With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement
> > > > is. I do.
> > >
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning
> a GPLed program.
As others have noted, this is not the case: the GPL does require
permission to run the program.
> From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the
> OSD
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and
> > > not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys.
> > > Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software
> > > would run without
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In other words, you can claim a license free, but you can't forbid
> > people from modifying your software to permit them to run it without
> > paying the fee.
> >
>
> I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and
> not bou
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As of today, I do not know of Open Source Software, that asks for
> License Fees. We are the first (to my knowledge) to do so and I think
> that we will not be the only ones. Our customers did not mind to pay
> fees for VShop 2.x (closed source) and I
Ralf Schwoebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The major problem are the paragraphs:
>
> 6.3 "The infection theory": isn't that close enough to the other
> licenses?
>
>
> But I see your (community) problem now and that paragraph might
> needs clarification:
>
> 6.3.3: "Don't touch the license
Ralf Schwoebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > But if you look at
> > http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
> > you will see that there are some sentences which you are ignoring.
> > Specifically, the license must allow modified
Ralf Schwoebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My second comment is that if this meets the open
> > source definition then that is a flaw in the
> > definition.
>
> Or intented to be like that? I see nowhere the sentence:
> "Do not charge money for software under the license XXXPL)
As someone w
Robert Feldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm relatively new to open-source licensing issues and would like some
> "expert" opinion/advice on which license to choose for a new project. I
> have previously released some stuff under GPL without seriously giving
> thought to what the different lice
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:47:04 -0800
I hope the open source community can help
encourage creative thinking in licensing, just as it encourages creative
thinking in software development, without settling too early on a
"standard."
I
From: David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:49:11 -0800
On Saturday 18 November 2000 04:32 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You're aquainted with how a linker works? It's the linking of object
> code plus libraries which creates the machine-code executable. F
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:52:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Bryan George wrote:
> > > The LGPL puts restrictions on P when it is linked with L. But so
> > > what? That linking will only happen on the end user system. ...
> > > But the
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 13:19:57 -0500
From: Bryan George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At any rate, I think this particular discussion thread is largely
academic. In the .com world, you have to make a strong case to convince
management that it's worth employing a library that places ANY
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:04:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 1 Nov 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The LGPL puts restrictions on P when it is linked with L. But so
> what? That linking will only happen on the end user system. The
> ty
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:37:07 -0500
From: Bryan George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The LGPL is basically designed to support shared libraries. If you
> can distribute your package as a shared library, then the LGPL does
> not put any restrictions on the program which uses the library.
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:13:38 -0500
From: Bryan George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As I said, that is how the LGPL _appears_. However, a close reading of
the license text reveals what again appears to be a poison pill where
commercial interests are concerned. Sections 5 and 6, in parti
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens)
I called Peter Deutsch to discuss this yesterday, but found that he has
dropped off of the OSI board. This wasn't announced. Perhaps I am looking
in the wrong place, but I can't find the OSI board ro
From: W.Yip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 22:11:15 +0100
1) What is dynamic linking? Is it the 'ln' command in Linux for symbolic
linking?
It has nothing to do with the `ln' command.
Linking in this sense is the process of combining object files and
libraries into an ex
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:04:38 +0100
From: cszigetv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At the end of this mail is part of an article from OS Opinion about
TurboLinux' delays the distribution of their modified code, while (as I
assume) they distribute binaries.
I assume they are distributing the
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:39:23 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The law considers intent, and ignores technical detail. If a person's
> actions are clearly intended to make a copyright ineffective, and if
> the co
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:45:47 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
where is it?
The flaw is in treating the law as though it were a computer program.
The law considers intent, and ignores technical de
I see a lot of people asking on this list why their licenses are not
being approved.
I think I've been on this list since it was created--in some small way
I may have encouraged its creation-- but I don't actually remember
seeing any license receive official OSI approval. I may well have
forgott
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:09:44 +
From: Angelo Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The creator of a given subject has "rights of an author".
In English this is often called ``moral rights.'' Moral rights do not
exist in English and American law. They exist in French law, and
presumably
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:49:37 -0500
From: Alex Nicolaou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I didn't mean that the GPL restricts use; it doesn't. But it restricts
modifications to those which do not violate the license, and the license
requires the banner which appears during gdb's startup that
I just sent off my replies to ESR's replies to my replies to his
replies to my comments on his Homesteading the Noosphere paper (which
were themselves a reply to ESR's reply to a message from RMS, etc.).
Respecting the various requests to keep the philosophy off of
license-discuss, I only sent my
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:19:24 -0400
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I was unable to find the earlier part of the discussion, but I recall
> that when Ian stated his motivations, you said that they were beside
> the point, bec
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The GPL essentially contains an advertising clause - itself. The GPL must
be redistributed with derivative code. Stallman himself says it is very
important for people to know, when they receive
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:56:11 -0400
From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 05:27:52PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> It's very hard to determine whether two products compete with one
> another. I wouldn't call a license which
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:10:59 -0400
From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Finally, you agree not to use our software to create a competing
product, meaning one which includes some part of our software, and
which has, at least in part, a similar purpose.
It's very hard to d
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:44:28 -0400 (EDT)
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit:
> Yes, but my reading of your paper is that you are claiming that my
> primary motivation is the ``reputation-game.''
I think that this is co
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:51:47 -0400
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I will argue that I am (necessarily) simplifying, but not
*over*-simplifying. I offer a precise definition: a model is
oversimplified when it is unable to predictively capture features
of the beha
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:18:26 -0400
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You're making simplistic statements about human behavior,
> which cannot possibly be true.
Richard, you don't understand "human behavior" worth a damn. If y
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:43:04 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> One easy and relatively inexpensive way to publish an algorithm with a
> legally verifiable date in the U.S. is to register it with the
> U.S. copyright office
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> 1) I don't want to spend a lot of money or do a lot of work.
>(i.e. I don't want to go through the hassle of applying for a
>patent myself.)
>
> 2) I d
Date:Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:01:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 28 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. If an alternate implementation from mine exists
> 2. and is available for the user to run with your application on that platform
> 3. and the
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:33:40 -0400 (EDT)
> [T]he LGPL, the license under which the major libraries are
> released, specifically allows non-free programs to link to binaries
> under that license.
The kernel, however (which is just another
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:13:25 -0700
From: Wilfredo Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its
| allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a
| better license?
Most certainly. For starters, it should
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:03:33 -0500
From: Signal 11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Seems to be a backlash against the GPL lately - slashdot has posted numerous
articles on freebsd, which invariably say that "the gpl is evil (blah blah),
and use freebsd because it's better. ".
There has be
101 - 163 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
