Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source
Rick! Now you are very polemic: quote forebear from referring to software under that licence as "open source", or it will have a serious public-relations problem. For it is _very_ obvious that, in fact, you do not intend to produce open-source software, and never did. Good luck to you. /quote 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. And the former common sence of US, yes there are MANY O-P-E-N S-O-U-R-C-E developers who still have a common sence on what this is and this does not meet the definition of the term the OSI brought up simply because not everyone who believes he does open source is reading and understanding the definition of the OSI. You are right that http://www.intradat.com does not deliver "open source" in the sence as the OSI defines it but they deliever open-source as this is not a defined term. And you are mybe right that they do not want to make "open source" however they have a different understanding and they like truely to make open-source. Manfred: if you distribute a piece of software to a customer A and you deliever it to a different customer B and both get it under different conditions for furhter use, even if both can choose the way they get it and how to use/redistribute it, then it is not open source according to OSI. Lets amke it simple: commercial users should pay, regardless how they use your software right? Non commercial users should get it for free if they likre. Both get the source code if they like. This is not open source(OSI). Period. Thats what all those writing here try to explain you. You "discriminate" (not in the german sense, in the latin sense) between both customers, EXACTLY this is not allowed under OSI/open source. However I agree with you that your way is the only RIGHT way in making software successfull especialy if you consider the shift from a producing industrie to a knowledge/information industrie. You need to invent a new term for your kind of source-included software distribution. Well, my company also works on a similar license. Contributors get a fair share of the revenues. EVERYBODY get the source code, non commercial organisations may get the software free of charge, commercial organisations have to pay. Everybody is encouraged to redistribute: however if the final user is a commercial one we like to get license fees and if he is not a commercial one we waive the fees. If anybody redistributes for a fee we like to get a fair share of those fees. Manfred: again, no one here likes to piss you, but the point is somebody defined boiling water is the water which is at 100 degree centigrade on sea level. Your water is only 80 degree centigrade, so you miss that definition. So either you heat it up or you leave it at 80 degrees but then you can not call it open source. Regards, Angelo Rick Moen wrote: -- Von: Rick Moen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Januar 2001 08:51:04 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. begin Manfred Schmid quotation: We see that emotions have gone high. I see that you _continue_ declining to address the subject at hand. Which is evaluating whether specific licences are OSD-compliant or not. Instead, you digress onto business models, alleged deficiencies in the OSD, and a whole circus of diversions. We take the freedom to make a final statement concerning our requests. [90-line manifesto snipped] Farewell! I sincerely hope that your employer has the good sense to forebear from referring to software under that licence as "open source", or it will have a serious public-relations problem. For it is _very_ obvious that, in fact, you do not intend to produce open-source software, and never did. Good luck to you. -- Cheers, "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us Rick Moenin trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Artemus Ward (1834-67), U.S. journalist -- Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source
begin Angelo Schneider quotation:
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.
In the spy-community sense ("open sources"), yes, but not in the
software sense. (You _may_ be able to dredge up a handfull of isolated
citations that you can claim predate OSI, but please spare us, as that
would be beside the point.)
And you will find that a large body of people insist on using the OSD
as the yardstick for that term, as being both a reasonable abstraction
of its principles and the only functional measure we have.
I'm sorry, but I have no time for ideological debate. We've seen quite
enough of that, recently. I just wished to warn Interdat that it faces
the same options it had -- and declined to acknowledge -- when it
started this discussion. Either pursue OSD compliance seriously and
quit hurling all that ridiculous and interminable rhetoric, or eschew
the "open source" label for its software.
That is sincere advice, aimed at helping the firm's representatives
understand their available options and avoid a serious mistake they
might yet make.
--
Cheers, "Reality is not optional."
Rick Moen -- Thomas Sowell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source
rick: i understand and respect your perspective, but why do your posts always sound like mafia threats? -dan
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid wrote: Hi all! [...] "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things." GNU reads "`Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer.'' ``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as OSI-compliant Open Source? Up to now, I did not find any such statement on opensource.org Manfred Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL. The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme from customer B. You can not say: customer A may redistribute/modify sources and pay a fee to you and customer B may NOT modify it. OSI simply says: ALL CUSTOMERS ARE EQUAL. If your license does not meet that criteria it is not OSI/open source. Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
RE: The Toll Roads of Open Source
Enough already, people. We're about one or two posts away from this devolving in something really ugly. Look, I take this licensing stuff as seriously as anyone here, but even I know that we're all staring it so intently and trying so hard to convince each other that we're losing our perspective. It's time for everyone involved to take a deep breath, step back from the keyboard, and think about something non-work related for a few minutes. Take care, Lou Grinzo Editor, LinuxProgramming.com -Original Message- From: dan [mailto:dan]On Behalf Of Dan Hensgen Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source rick: i understand and respect your perspective, but why do your posts always sound like mafia threats? -dan
Re: IPL as a burden
John Cowan wrote: Angelo Schneider wrote: Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL. The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme from customer B. Sure you can. The FSF charges for the GNU CDs it distributes (historically a major income source for them), but also gives away the exact same software for download via FTP. You cannot appeal to the DFSG/OSD anti-discrimination rule and expect them to give you a free or even at-cost CD on the strength of it. The problem is that you are discriminating based on class of customer. It is not simply a matter for charging for CDs. The IPL discriminates between various classes of customers, making some pay a license fee and other don't have to pay a license fee. The FTP download is freely available to everyone - not just a specific class of customers. Likewise, GPLed software *may* contain technical means that compel users to pay a fee when they use the program. However, the libre nature of GPLed software means that anyone can create a version of the program which does not contain that code. You can not say: customer A may redistribute/modify sources and pay a fee to you and customer B may NOT modify it. Correct. OSI simply says: ALL CUSTOMERS ARE EQUAL. In respect of their rights to modify, redistribute, etc. Not necessarily in all other respects. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein Brian DeSpain VA Linux Systems
Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source
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., http://www.perens.com/OSD.html. Ian
Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source
begin Dan Hensgen quotation: i understand and respect your perspective, but why do your posts always sound like mafia threats? Here at linuxmafia.com, we make people offers they can afford -- and throw in the source code for free. As we say in California, thanks for sharing. But seriously, your company talking about "threats" is just yet another tiresome digression. Either finally deal with the OSD, or pester some other list, please. By and large, we're busy people. -- Cheers, "Reality is not optional." Rick Moen -- Thomas Sowell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source
David Johnson wrote: On Monday 22 January 2001 09:35 am, Bryan George wrote: Okay, I'm writing it down: "Audience = inflexible Unix bigots = document = brain dead ASCII text". Got it, thanks! Sigh... I don't have MS Office, and I am not about to pay for it. This has nothing to do with bigotry, but everything to do with my money, my harddrive space, etc... And when it comes to a choice between rebooting the system to run your document's native OS, or shelling out yet more money to get VMWare, I'll just abstain. I'm just busting your chops a little, really... :) You don't have to convince me of the need for a low-cost, accessible, open way to pass docs around - I just got a little tweaked with the "Real men use ASCII" crud. %b There are alternatives so use them. If the presentation you are sending is comprised solely of verbal content, then ASCII is sufficient. If you need some small amount of text formatting, try HTML. And if you need to control the document's appearance exactly, try PDF. I was going to suggest that - presumably anyone with pockets for Office can pick up a copy of Acrobat as well, and the reader's free and multi-platform. Cheers, Bryan -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org begin:vcard n:George;Bryan tel;fax:703-883-6708 tel;work:703-883-5458 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.mitre.org org:The MITRE Corporation;Signal Processing Center adr:;;1820 Dolley Madison Blvd., M/S W622;McLean;VA;22102-3481;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Lead Signal Processing Engineer fn:Dr. Bryan George end:vcard S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source
Bryan George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Johnson wrote: On Monday 22 January 2001 09:35 am, Bryan George wrote: Okay, I'm writing it down: "Audience = inflexible Unix bigots = document = brain dead ASCII text". Got it, thanks! Sigh... I don't have MS Office, and I am not about to pay for it. This has nothing to do with bigotry, but everything to do with my money, my harddrive space, etc... And when it comes to a choice between rebooting the system to run your document's native OS, or shelling out yet more money to get VMWare, I'll just abstain. I'm just busting your chops a little, really... :) You don't have to convince me of the need for a low-cost, accessible, open way to pass docs around - I just got a little tweaked with the "Real men use ASCII" crud. %b I didn't say that real men use ASCII. Merely that with some audiences you have to if you want to be heard. There are alternatives so use them. If the presentation you are sending is comprised solely of verbal content, then ASCII is sufficient. If you need some small amount of text formatting, try HTML. And if you need to control the document's appearance exactly, try PDF. I was going to suggest that - presumably anyone with pockets for Office can pick up a copy of Acrobat as well, and the reader's free and multi-platform. Why not pick up TeX? The output looks about as good as you will get, it can be presented as PDF, the source is human-readable and small, and bit-rot is zero. Oh, and both software for reading and creating is free. OK, so it is not open source. And before anyone points me at standard GPLed packages for TeX, allow me to point out that Knuth's software is under a license that does not permit modifications. IANAL, but AFAICS if you incorporate work which you are not allowed to modify into GPLed software, then you have no right to permit modifications as required by section 2 of the GPL, and under section 7 you are then not allowed to distribute the GPLed work as a whole. Not that Knuth is likely to complain unless someone tries to modify it in some way. (Like Slackware made the mistake of doing a while ago...) Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: IPL as a burden
on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:36:11PM -0500, Lou Grinzo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: What about dual-licensing? Can a company say, "this tool is free and distributed under the GPL, but only for creating free software; if you want to sell your software you have to pay for a license and get it under our normal close-source license"? Or would that violate the GPL and/or OSI guidelines? Cf: Troll Tech's Qt libraries? OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. This is slightly different from the FSF's definition of free software, which applies to software. The mapping of both definitions onto software is very similar, though not identical. What is commonly called "public domain" (Larry tells me there's no such beast until copyright expiry) is, for example, FSF free software, but not OSI Open Source. The free software license, if it met the OSD, and was available without prejudice to all comers, should satisfy the OSI's requirements. Alternative licensing terms, applying, again, without prejudice to all comers for other than free software use shouldn't IMO effect this. I'm not asking this in an attempt to be a devil's advocate. I thought this was OK, but this thread now has me wondering if my assumption was wrong or if there's some reason why using different licenses with different customers isn't a viable solution for the company in question. Frankly, my recommendation to them would be either to create a gated community along the lines of Sun's Java efforts and some of the Collab projects, forgoing the lable of OSI Certified Open Source, or work out a dual licensing scheme as we're discussing here. Intentions appear to be for source distribution but not fully free terms. Their problem appears to be a desire for rivalrous simultaneous confectionary consumptive activities. Cake, have, eat, not. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source
Ben Tilly wrote: ... Why not pick up TeX? The output looks about as good as you will get, it can be presented as PDF, the source is human-readable and small, and bit-rot is zero. Oh, and both software for reading and creating is free. Ah, TeX - that takes me back - wy back... :) DocBook would be my suggestion if you really want to go fancy and free. It's XML-based, the DTD and "db2*" tools are Open Source, and it fans out to PostScript, DVI, HTML, PDF, and RTF. Texinfo does a lot of the same, but doesn't have the XML cachet DocBook has. Cheers, Ben Over and out, Bryan begin:vcard n:George;Bryan tel;fax:703-883-6708 tel;work:703-883-5458 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.mitre.org org:The MITRE Corporation;Signal Processing Center adr:;;1820 Dolley Madison Blvd., M/S W622;McLean;VA;22102-3481;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Lead Signal Processing Engineer fn:Dr. Bryan George end:vcard S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Document formats (was: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source)
begin Bryan George quotation: I'm just busting your chops a little, really... :) You don't have to convince me of the need for a low-cost, accessible, open way to pass docs around - I just got a little tweaked with the "Real men use ASCII" crud. %b There _was_ a time (up to circa 1988) when Microsoft used document formats that could reasonably be used as a gemerally-readable format after only a modest amount of reverse-engineering by other parties. Of late, unfortunately, especially with the default "fast save" option, their formats often cannot be deterministically read by anything but the latest Win32 versions of Microsoft's products. (And I hear horror stories even there.) In any event, I've been tempted to start an information-clearinghouse site listing the leading formats for various types of data files, the major drawbacks of each (including vendor lock-in), the state (functionality, stability, encumbrances if any, coverage among proprietary packages) of the leading "open" document format, and details of possible migration stategies. The aim would be to let people know what their options are, if they attempt to move data out of the proprietary formats where they're held hostage. I fear that the task is a bit ambitious, and am trying to figure out how to start with something small yet useful, and aim to build up. Also, some vital compatibility information will probably be available only from testing proprietary applications and OSes, which I don't have. So, this would have to involve participation from users of that software. Additionally, I'm a little unclear on what is going to make a format recommendable in the real world. It seems debatable. E.g., TeX / DVI is an ideal, stable, robust format for publishing (modulo some reported weakness in handling graphics), but reportedly has poor desktop-OS software support. These issues may become clearer if/when I try to prototype a site. -- Cheers, "Reality is not optional." Rick Moen -- Thomas Sowell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IPL as a burden
on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:15:52AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be applied to licenses, because licenses aren't "goods" distributed in commerce. OK. Clarifying question: the certified entity is the license and its terms. So distribution under a doctrine of "public domain" (abandonment, etc.), leaves you without a basis for affixing this lable, no? And, yes, I realize that PD is used here advisably. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: Document formats (was: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source)
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. Ian
RE: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source
From: Bryan George [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I was going to suggest that - presumably anyone with pockets for Office can pick up a copy of Acrobat as well, and the reader's free and multi-platform. [DJW:] There are royalty free and "open source" tools for creating and viewing PDF, from third parties (e.g. recent ghostscript, and ghostscript old enough to be GPLed). -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Document formats (was: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source)
begin Ben Tilly quotation: [TeX:] OK, so it is not open source. And before anyone points me at standard GPLed packages for TeX, allow me to point out that Knuth's software is under a license that does not permit modifications. IANAL, but AFAICS if you incorporate work which you are not allowed to modify into GPLed software, then you have no right to permit modifications as required by section 2 of the GPL, and under section 7 you are then not allowed to distribute the GPLed work as a whole. 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 Project (http://www.latex-project.org/latex3.html). I could be mistaken, but am basing my comments on a quick search of the online FAQs and other documentation. (I haven't examined the copyright notices on LaTeX's source packages.) -- Cheers, "Reality is not optional." Rick Moen -- Thomas Sowell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IPL as a burden
"Lawrence E. Rosen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be applied to licenses, because licenses aren't "goods" distributed in commerce. Then I think your position on Berkeley DB, shipped by Sleepycat Software, would do wonders in clearing this up. To my eyes they are open source and they claim to be open source. The product is widely used and their license seems straightforward and simple. It boils down to saying that you are free to use this software, with or without modificaiton, in any software for which source is available. You may not remove their copyright notice. Said notice includes contact information in case you want to negotiate a different license or purchase support for Berkeley DB. The license is at http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net. Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Common Public License (IBM)
Hi everyone,
I'm a software developer at IBM, working on a project that we expect to
release as Open Source/Free Software. I voted for the GPL, but the higher
ups here at IBM have decided it should be released under a new
license called the "Common Public License". This license is basically the
IBM Public License with almost all references to IBM removed (IBM is still
the 'steward' of the license). See below for the actual license.
So, I am trying to get this license OSI and FSF approved. I figured this
would be a good forum to get comments before I send it to the OSI and FSF.
I'm assuming that since the IBM Public License is already OSI and FSF
approved (well, really only FSF evaluated) that there shouldn't be any
issues with this license.
The license is not yet available on any official IBM website, so I've
included it at the end of this email (if it's running off the right
side of your screen, sorry about the formatting...). For those who would
rather view an html version, I didn't want to include it in this email so
I've (temporarily!) put it on my home computer which is at:
http://www.root.cx/
or I can email an html version to anyone who wants it (or if my home
computer is down). As a reference for comparison, you can view the IBM
Public License at:
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/license10.html
Thanks!
--
Dan Streetman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Common Public License - v 1.0
THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS OPEN PUBLIC LICENSE
("AGREEMENT").
ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S
ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.
1. DEFINITIONS
"Contribution" means:
a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and documentation
distributed under this Agreement, and
b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor:
i) changes to the Program, and
ii) additions to the Program;
where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from and are distributed
by that particular Contributor. A Contribution 'originates' from a Contributor if it
was added to the Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such
Contributor's behalf. Contributions do not include additions to the Program which:
(i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program under
their own license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the Program.
"Contributor" means any person or entity that distributes the Program.
"Licensed Patents " mean patent claims licensable by a Contributor which are
necessarily infringed by the use or sale of its Contribution alone or when combined
with the Program.
"Program" means the Contributions distributed in accordance with this Agreement.
"Recipient" means anyone who receives the Program under this Agreement, including all
Contributors.
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
a) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants
Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce,
prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute and
sublicense the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in
source code and object code form.
b) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants
Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under Licensed
Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the
Contribution of such Contributor, if any, in source code and object code form. This
patent license shall apply to the combination of the Contribution and the Program if,
at the time the Contribution is added by the Contributor, such addition of the
Contribution causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed Patents. The
patent license shall not apply to any other combinations which include the
Contribution. No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.
c) Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the licenses to
its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances are provided by any Contributor that
the Program does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any
other entity. Each Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient for claims
brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or
otherwise. As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder,
each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual
property rights needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is
required to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's
responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the Program.
d) Each Contributor represents that to its knowledge it has sufficient copyright
rights in its Contribution, if any, to grant the copyright license set forth in
Berkeley DB: (was RE: IPL as a burden)
"Ben Tilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It boils down to saying that you are free to use this software, with or without modificaiton, in any software for which source is available. You may not remove their copyright notice. Said notice includes contact information in case you want to negotiate a different license or purchase support for Berkeley DB. The license is at http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net. The license says *Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on *how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any *accompanying software that uses the DB software You can derive "closed source" software from the Berkely DB software. If you choose to distribute, you must publish the source. (This is similar to the GPL.) Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
RE: IPL as a burden
OSI Certified Open Source Software is software that is distributed under an approved open source license. So software that is "public domain" (to use your term) is not certifiable. This is not intended as a value judgment, merely as a description of what our certification mark is used for. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IPL as a burden on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:15:52AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be applied to licenses, because licenses aren't "goods" distributed in commerce. OK. Clarifying question: the certified entity is the license and its terms. So distribution under a doctrine of "public domain" (abandonment, etc.), leaves you without a basis for affixing this lable, no? And, yes, I realize that PD is used here advisably. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
Re: Document formats (was: To the keepers of the holy grail of Open Source)
begin Ben Tilly quotation: See http://www.latex-project.org/guides/ltx3info/node2.html for confirmation. See also http://www.latex-project.org/guides/ltx3info/node4.html for evidence that there is at present no plan to remove the dependency upon TeX. Thanks for the clarification. LaTeX is made to work atop "any standard TeX system (or whatever replaces it)". -- Cheers, "Reality is not optional." Rick Moen -- Thomas Sowell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: trademarked logos and GPL
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: I want to discourage license-discuss participants from answering questions like this one. : But non-lawyers have to avoid giving legal advice Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way. In a word, BS. I agree. If "non-lawyers have to avoid giving legal advice" is the rule here, I guess we can all pack up and go home. We're talking about software licenses, and whether or not they fit the OSD. Given that we must consider whether or not the license, as is legally enforcable, conforms to the guidelines of the OSD, we must discuss legal issues. We may even say things that sound like legal advice, like "the text of that license leaves holes people could use to set up their own closed-source derivative product." Liability is not an issue; this is a list largely composed of software developers, not lawyers, and people shouldn't confuse the two. On a list of this nature, I refuse to accept it as a burden on *my* shoulders to avoid statements that people might use as legal advice. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
