Re: "open-source" x "free software"
Hi John, Just a little question: > 1) The freedom to study the source code and adapt it to your needs > 3) The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements publicly > Freedoms 1 and 3 imply that the source code is freely accessible. When you mean freely accessible, does it means that we can't charge for downloads? regards guich -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: "open-source" x "free software"
People, Thanks for all the feedback. I'll read the suggested articles and try to understand. thanks again guich -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
"open-source" x "free software"
Hi OSI folks, Just to abuse a little from your patience. Since i already misunderstood the concept of "open-source" (which does not only means source-code-available, but also requires-free-distribution), are there any other concepts behind "free software", except that they are free of charge? 2nd question: if i want to say that my software is "open source" but not "freely distributed", which term must i use? thanks and regards guich -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why "open-source" means "free to distribute"?
Hi Alex > > Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at > > the main page? That could make my users happy. ;-D > > Only if you also distribute some software, to some users, under OSI > license, I guess. That makes sense. But what we think when we see the logo in the site is that everything is open-source. What we need to do to place the logo at our site? Just get it and put in the html? regards guich -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why "open-source" means "free to distribute"?
Hi, > Just read carefully their page: > http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm > > ESL: Enterprise Source License > > OSL: OEM Source License > > None is an OSI approved license. In particular, the Enterprise Source > License is certainly not open-source since it does not allow to > distribute modified versions. > > It is not the first time that the term "open-source" in used with a > different meaning of the OSI definition. Sure, but why the OSI logo at the main page??? Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at the main page? That could make my users happy. ;-D guich -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why "open-source" means "free to distribute"?
Hi, > The paragraphs you seem to be referring to are not licenses. They only > refer to OSL and ESL licenses. What does OSL and ESL stands for? thx guich -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why "open-source" means "free to distribute"?
> I do not see a license on their web site. What GlueCode's license is > OSI-certified? Do you recognise the green icon at left? http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html See the orange menu? Click the last link: "open source licensing" Read it. Isnt it distribution-limited? regards guich -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Why "open-source" means "free to distribute"?
Hi, Since my last thread was little deturped from the main question, i'm starting another one. So, people stated that "open-source" is "free to distribute". But GlueCode's license is OSI-certified and their license is clearly distribution-limited: http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm So, what's the magic here? thanks and regards guich -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Hi, Can someone tell me why this product is OSI certified? (see logo at the site) http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html Their license is clearly distribution-limited: http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm thanks guich ps: it would be nice if the mail-list engine put the reply-to as the [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to the guy that sent the e-mail ps2: sorry, Chuck, i sent privately to you by mistake due to this. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Hi Alex and John, Thank you for the feedback. > The principle that open-source software can be freely distributed and redistributed is the > very first point of the Open Source Definition. Really? I thought that open-source meaned that the guy can see and change the source, but not related to distribution. So, all OSI approved licenses state that the distribution is completely free? And what about different targets, e.g., sources and binary? Can we make the sources open-source but the binaries not? Does this makes sense? I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source specification is so rigid. > Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is > most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to > release the sources of your software (and allow modification?), it > seems to me that a competitor would have to do much more to survive > the competition than simply apply an OSI-approved license to your old > sources... Unless they have a sponsor who is determined to kill your > project on the grounds of OSI incompliance. Well, all this may happen. In fact, the project that is now LGPL will remain LGPL. The part, that will be covered by the subscription, will be a new product that will aggregate value to the already existing part of the project (they are: a visual form designer, an enhanced version of a product that is currently closed-source, and two vms that will boost performance in 10x). Our idea is to make all these new parts as open-source (i mean, sources are available to use and enhance, but not to distribute) only for people that subscribe, and only during subscription duration (one year that can be renewed). I'm part of the open-source community for many years, and already participated as conferencist on more than 10 open-source conferences. I'm not at the evil side, please understand. The main idea is to keep the sources open-source, but not the binaries. Is this possible with any of the OSI licenses? regards Guilherme -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Hi all, We have a product that is currently submitted using the LGPL license. Our product is a virtual machine + a class library. Our users create products using the class library and deploy their products with the class library and the virtual machine. We now want to change the license from part of the product to another one that states: 1. our software is and will ever be open-source 2. their software can have any license they want 3. they cannot distribute our software to their customers (or anyone else) We're migrating to an "annual subscription" mode, so that we can raise funds to keep the software open-source (and keep us altogether) The LGPL is perfect for 1+2, but not for 1+2+3. Questions: 1. Which licenses do you think (OSI-approved) that could fit on these clauses? 2. In case we want to create a new license, how much time does OSI takes to approve it? We have now a deadline (well, everybody does! ;-)). 3. If we take an already-approved license, like (just example) mozilla one, must we keep the license exactly as it is (with all references to mozilla), or can we replace the mozilla one by our product's name? Thanks in advance William -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
