RE: University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License

John McEntire pointed out to me earlier today that I need to close on the questions I raised about the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License. As I said in my earlier email, I believe that license is consistent with the OSD and that it warrants approval by the OSI board of directors. I

RE: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License

EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:52 PM To: John Taylor McEntire Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License John, I really appreciate the clear focus you presented in your rationale for your UoI/NCSA Open Source License. There are good reasons to merge th

RE: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License

John, I really appreciate the clear focus you presented in your rationale for your UoI/NCSA Open Source License. There are good reasons to merge the BSD and MIT licenses into a clearer, but still short, open source license -- and you stated those reasons well. I believe your license is

RE: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License

community rather than being merely redundant. John McEntire -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:40 PM To: John Taylor McEntire; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License On Thursday 14 March 2002 01:2

Re: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License

John Taylor McEntire scripsit: > [ Please discuss this license. -russ ] I think this license is plainly open source and should be fast tracked. -- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne

Re: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License

On Thursday 14 March 2002 01:26 pm, John Taylor McEntire wrote: > Included as text to this e-mail is the University of Illinois/NCSA Open > Source License for your review and consideration as an approved OSI open > source license. This license is a combination of the already-approved

Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License

. Included as text to this e-mail is the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License for your review and consideration as an approved OSI open source license. This license is a combination of the already-approved MIT and BSD licenses. However, the combined text is more explicit regarding the granted

RE: NCSA Open Source License

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Gray > Subject: Re: NCSA Open Source License > > I don't think they need to create a separate ``trademark > license''. They just need to make sure that anyone who might > consider relea

Re: NCSA Open Source License

"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote: > The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate trademark > license is legally not possible, at least without many more controls > over the quality of derivative works than would be acceptable by the > open source community. > I don't think they need to c

RE: NCSA Open Source License

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: NCSA Open Source License > > > Hi, > > On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 19:50, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > > The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate > trademark > > license is legally not

Re: NCSA Open Source License

Hello, As pt_PT translator and rpm packager of AbiWord, I have something to say about this: On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 08:59:12PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Isn't this what AbiSource does. They have the following statement about > their product: > For more information see >

RE: NCSA Open Source License

Hi, On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 19:50, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate trademark > license is legally not possible, at least without many more controls > over the quality of derivative works than would be acceptable by the > open source community.

RE: NCSA Open Source License

: Mark Wielaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Mark Wielaard > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 1:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: NCSA Open Source License > > > Hi, > > On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 06:15, Albert Chin wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 0

Re: NCSA Open Source License

On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Albert Chin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:29:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Bruce Perens wrote: > > > OK - one might consider that it's one license _text_ rather than > > > 4, but yes it's three licenses. Is it possible to sucessfully > > >

Re: NCSA Open Source License

Hi, On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 06:15, Albert Chin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:29:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > Um, no. We are talking about a rev of the Apache license to address > > some concerns, but there are things about the current "advertising" > > clause (you've read it recen

Re: NCSA Open Source License

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:29:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Bruce Perens wrote: > > OK - one might consider that it's one license _text_ rather than > > 4, but yes it's three licenses. Is it possible to sucessfully > > lobby Apache to get rid of the advertising clause?

Re: NCSA Open Source License

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:38:20PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > Bruce, the so-called "advertising" clause in the Apache license is > extremely important. As I stated in one of my columns in Linux Journal, > trademark protection is, in some respects, even more important to open > source compa

RE: NCSA Open Source License

AIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: NCSA Open Source License > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Bruce Perens wrote: > > OK - one might consider that it's one license _text_ rather > than 4, but yes > > it's three licenses. Is it possible to sucessfu

Re: NCSA Open Source License

From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Approve it. We judge licenses by one set of criteria: the OSD. We > do, it is admitted, sometimes attempt to convince people to use an > existing license. Feel free to try this with NCSA. Yes, I'm trying. I will probably bring you folks in to help at

Re: NCSA Open Source License

Bruce Perens writes: > Yes, I saw the present advertising clause. It's close to being a no-op, but > if you want it there, I guess I can't make much headway in this. Well, what > do you folks plan to do when faced with yet another BSD/MIT license? Approve it. We judge licenses by one set of c

Re: NCSA Open Source License

Yes, I saw the present advertising clause. It's close to being a no-op, but if you want it there, I guess I can't make much headway in this. Well, what do you folks plan to do when faced with yet another BSD/MIT license? Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr

Re: NCSA Open Source License

Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > There are currently at least 4 variations of the MIT license on > OSI's accepted list: MIT, BSD, Apache, X.com. I don't want to > suggest that NCSA petition OSI to accept yet another > variation. While OSI and friends have given up on the prospect of > generatin

Re: NCSA Open Source License

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Bruce Perens wrote: > OK - one might consider that it's one license _text_ rather than 4, but yes > it's three licenses. Is it possible to sucessfully lobby Apache to get rid of > the advertising clause? They probably have enough experience now to see it's > had no positive ef

Re: NCSA Open Source License

On Wednesday 16 January 2002 04:57 pm, Bruce Perens wrote: > appears that it would at least be possible for OSI and the community to > drive unification of the MIT variants into a single license with two > optional portions: the > generally-deprecated advertising clause used by Apache, and the >

Re: NCSA Open Source License

> That would be three licenses, I think. OK - one might consider that it's one license _text_ rather than 4, but yes it's three licenses. Is it possible to sucessfully lobby Apache to get rid of the advertising clause? They probably have enough experience now to see it's had no positive effect. T

NCSA Open Source License

I am corresponding with NCSA regarding some work Open Source work that they would be doing with partial funding from HP. One of the Open Source licenses they use is the BSD license, but with the preliminary paragraph of the MIT license replacing the BSD preliminary paragraph. This creates a somewh