Re: About the suffix (or prefix?) ...
I agree that it would be nice to have a [license-discuss] prefix in the subject line. This is a configurable option for ezmlm, yes? OT On the topic of filters, I had wondered where all my license-discuss traffic was going. Turns out that I had gotten a little aggressive in the area of body message text filtering. I had set to yank anything with MLM (as in multi-level marketing), and ended up punishing our hard-working list manager software. Now I'm getting lots more great money-making opportunities - but I'm also getting my OSI mail again. /OT Sigh. - Original Message - From: Alex Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: license-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:09 AM Subject: Re: About the suffix (or prefix?) ... On Wednesday 01 October 2003 07:51, you wrote: Dear friends, can we please have the usual automatic suffix (or prefix?) to the subject of the e-mail on the mailing list? There is already a list header in every message: Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Can you filter by that instead? -- Alex Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]BD10 7AFC 87F6 63F9 1691 83FA 9884 3A15 AFC9 61B7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] F687 1964 1EF6 453E 9BD0 5148 A15D 1D43 AB92 9A46 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
UnitedLinux and open source
Saw this interview with Ransom Love, Caldera CEO (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-928704.html) and was wondering about this exchange: -- Q: So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project? A: Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile their own binaries, but they will not be able to use the UnitedLinux brand. -- Does that square with a) the GPL, and/or b) the OSI definition? I posed a similar question about restricting the distribution of binaries on this list several months ago, and got an earful. Am I missing something? Thanks, Ned Lilly -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
Karsten M. Self wrote: Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications. They're not the best form of a work. Specifically, they're not the preferred for for making modifications to the work. Better to go with the source form than the compiled form, where appropriate. Likewise proscriptions against obfuscated or machine-generated sources. This was kind of my thinking in the original question; the license we're contemplating would in fact make the source and binaries freely available for personal or corporate use. The source would be freely redistributable as well in its official unmodified form. We'd like to reserve the right to distribute binaries to ourselves (for revenue-protection reasons), and we'd want to be the authority branding the official release and approving patches. I had thought/hoped that this approach would be reasonably palatible to OSI since it preserved the source modifiability and redistribution, which I think Karsten correctly identified as the best form. Regards, Ned -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
binary restrictions?
Hello all, Apologies if this question has been covered before. I haven't been on this list for many months. Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization? So if I started project Foo, anyone could download from foo.org, use Foo in their business, modify the code at will, and submit patches (if desired) for consideration by Foo leaders. Anyone could redistribute the official source (but *not* modified source). But only Foo, Inc. could redistribute binaries. Have I missed something obvious? The situation I'm contemplating is for a new company, with privately developed software. No patent or third-party issues to worry about, just a desire to protect the application from whole-cloth hijacking by bigger fish. Any comments welcome. Thanks, Ned -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, I wrote: Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization? It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD says The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. What is your purpose in wishing to restrict distribution of the binaries? If it is to provide a mechanism that guarantees purchase, then no OSS license will do. But if it is to protect the name and reputation of the software, then there are several avenues you can take to accomplish that. Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee purchase. That is, purchase from Foo, Inc. and no one else (if you want to purchase software in the first place). But nothing's stopping you from getting the source and compiling it yourself. Is that a hard and fast no-no? ISTM that Section 2 is more concerned with source code (and downloadability, non-obfuscation, etc.) Why should restricting binaries be an issue if the source is 100% free? Re: Karsten and John's other thread, I did intend it as a patch license - that is, anyone could distribute the official source, but not the modified source as a whole. If they wanted to distribute their patches somehow, that would be fine. Thanks, Ned -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Real-World Copyright Assignment
Greg Herlein wrote: However, I'm very interested in the actual real-world implementation of this. What kind of language do you use in the copyright assignement agreement? Is there a template that cn be copied by others? Do you require hard copy signed and snail-mailed to consider it legal? Do you apply this to all contributions? Obviously a major feature implmentation would need it, but what about a three line patch? Where is the cutoff from a practical consideration? One project I was involved with was considering working some sort of one-time click to agree to the provisions of the license into the CVS or patch manager. That would cover assignment of copyright as well as indemnification of the developers. Since things like CVS are individual account-driven, the attorneys felt that an one-time (and for all future submissions) electronic agreement would suffice, since you could have the record of the individual developer's agreement. Is anyone familiar with something like this actually being put into practice? As to contributing back profits from the effort to the original contributors, how do you calculate the share? How can you track that? Ugh, I don't think you can. Fool's errand, IMHO. If you submit code to a project, you don't do it in expectation of future profits directly from the code. Likely unworkable and unenforcable. I'm also interested in what constitutes distribution - if someone takes GPL code and embeds it into a network appliance and sells that product as a black box and the user never even knows what happens under the hood, is that considered distribution? How can a develper enforce it if they want to license the code so that if you are free, my code is free; if you are commercial, my code is commercial? Anyone from TiVo on this list? That's their situation with the Linux kernel exactly. See http://www.tivo.com/linux/ Regards, Ned
