Re: copyleft lite?
Mahesh T Pai wrote: That one line is superfluous. That is what the statute book says. Since it there in the statute book, this is how it will be, whether you say it or not. IANAL, but isn't that true only until they change the statute book? In other words, isn't there something to be said for stating your intent even if it is superfluous, in case the statute book is changed? Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: UnitedLinux and open source
Ned Lilly wrote: OK, so there's no problem with prohibiting the (re)distribution of the binaries that *you* compile and brand? I'm just a little hesitant to answer that, so I'll defer to someone else. (Not sure why, it sounds like the same issue I addressed just a minute ago -- I guess I'm wondering whether the branded binaries can be redistributed if all signs of the branding are removed. Not sure about that.) Randy Kramer Thanks. - Original Message - From: Randy Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ned Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:20 PM Subject: Re: UnitedLinux and open source Ned Lilly wrote: 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? I'll try to avoid the earful: a) Yes. You can charge for the binaries, or distribution of them, or something like that. You must make the source available, but you may charge a reasonable distribution fee. You can't prevent someone else from compiling the source and distributing the binaries, and that other person can charge for their binaries (they have the same right you have) or distribute them for free. Restricting the use of a brand or trademark is an allowed strategy to differentiate your product from what someone else may compile from the same source. There are perhaps other things I could mention, but hopefully, this is less than an earful ;-) b) Yes -- I think it is the same for the OSI, but there are more licenses to choose from, so I'm not sure what I list above is exactly the case for every OSI license. Note: I am neither an expert nor affiliated with the FSF or the OSI. I just thought I'd try to answer the question short and sweet (as a layman), and let anybody correct me if I've gone drastically wrong. Randy Kramer -- 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 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Simple Permissive License, v0.1
Mikko Valimaki wrote: You don't need to say anything about things that are default in copyright law. It is default that author's 'moral rights' including the copyright notice may not be removed unless the work is substantially modified. So, if the work is substantially modified, the copyright notice can be removed? In that case I think I'd want something to keep my name on it as the original author, despite substantial modification -- maybe with a pointer to where the product can be found without substantial modification. Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Bruce, Ok, presumably this will do it. Randy Kramer Bruce Perens wrote: Someone please tell Russ his qmail is rejecting me. Bruce -- 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
Re: open source licenses and algorithms
Michael Bauer wrote: Randy Kramer wrote: So, is the algorithm patented as well as copyrighted? If so, I think another can of worms is about to have the top popped off. You can license something that is patented, thus, if an algorithm is patented, it could be licensed. What algorithm are we talking about? AFAIK, the discussion was about a hypothetical algorithm. If you are asking can an algorithm be both copyrighted and patented? -- I don't know. and besides, IANAL, Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: open source licenses and algorithms
Patrik Wallstrom wrote: On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Randy Kramer wrote: So, is the algorithm patented as well as copyrighted? If so, I think another can of worms is about to have the top popped off. You can license something that is patented, thus, if an algorithm is patented, it could be licensed. What algorithm are we talking about? AFAIK, the discussion was about a hypothetical algorithm. I asked a question about a (still hypothetical, but a practical thing I have to work out) program with an algorithm and a protocol that (if possible) will be locked to that exact algorithm and protocol provided with the original software, but still with an open source license. I guess I have to either not open source it, or change this requirement. Patrik, Sorry, I can't help you on that point. Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
I find this thread interesting, and hope that when some consensus is reached (or the thead dies down and there is perhaps an agreement to disagree) that someone can summarize the areas of consensus and disagreement for a layman. (Perhaps the best resting place for something like that is on a wiki -- if someone else writes a summary I would be happy to host it on my TWiki.) I am not a lawyer, and have not read this thread with enough understanding to make any comments except the following: Michael Beck wrote: Since java.util.Dictionary is an abstract class, and you override abstract methods, I agree with you. By having abstract methods in a class, IMHO the author gives the user implicitly the right to create a subclass and override the abstract methods. Re: IMHO the author gives the user implicitly the right to create a subclass and override the abstract methods. I'm not so sure -- creating abstract methods is useful for the original version of the program, to be overridden by derived classes in the original. Simply the presence of abstract classes does not mean that the author intends for others to also derive from those classes. (IMHO, and in my limited knowledge of C++). Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: forums
Update: Peter Thoeny is going to set up a new web for my experimental uses, including this purpose. I don't know exactly when it will be set up, and I've suggested the name Wikilearn (which is the name of the site I've been working to set up). If this link doesn't work (http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Test/ForOsiApprovalOpenGroupTestSuiteLicense) (page doesn't exist or something like that), try this link: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Wikilearn/ForOsiApprovalOpenGroupTestSuiteLicense Randy Kramer PS: I know I didn't explain much -- if you want to add comments, click on a link that says something like Comments on the previous paragraph. Then, on that page, click on the Edit link at the bottom of the page. Saving is a two step process -- first you preview your changes (Preview Changes button at the bottom of the edit page), then save your changes (Save Changes button at the bottom of the preview page). I've applied a primitive form of locking to the other pages to avoid changes to the text of the license or Open Source definition. Randy Kramer wrote: I have taken the liberty of making a TWiki page (actually pages) of the first license listed below. The intent is to provide a means of easily commenting and accumulating comments on the license, mostly on a per paragraph basis. Please try it out at: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Test/ForOsiApprovalOpenGroupTestSuiteLicense Some notes: * To add comments you will have to register on twiki.org by going to http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/TWikiRegistration. (Don't be put off by the Authorization Failed message, it is there because that page is called on other occasions when the message is appropriate.) * I've also included the nine paragraphs of the open source definition with the ability to comment on each of those. (The intent is to allow comments re the license under consideration -- does it fail to satisfy one of those paragraphs.) * I have written to Andrew Josey (the person requesting approval of the license) to confirm that he has no problem posting his license in this manner. He asked that I remove his telephone numbers which I have done. * Currently the page is setup so that you go to another page to read (or add) comments for each paragraph or section. In a few days, I will make an alternate view (Bookview) which will show all the comments on the same page as the license. * Let me know what you think at some point. I've corresponded with John Cowan about his Elephant project, and this might be considered an interim approach until his project is ready. It did take a fair amount of work to set this up the first time, but if it proves worthwhile, some parts of the setup could be automated and/or required of the applicant. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: forums
I have taken the liberty of making a TWiki page (actually pages) of the first license listed below. The intent is to provide a means of easily commenting and accumulating comments on the license, mostly on a per paragraph basis. Please try it out at: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Test/ForOsiApprovalOpenGroupTestSuiteLicense Some notes: * To add comments you will have to register on twiki.org by going to http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/TWikiRegistration. (Don't be put off by the Authorization Failed message, it is there because that page is called on other occasions when the message is appropriate.) * I've also included the nine paragraphs of the open source definition with the ability to comment on each of those. (The intent is to allow comments re the license under consideration -- does it fail to satisfy one of those paragraphs.) * I have written to Andrew Josey (the person requesting approval of the license) to confirm that he has no problem posting his license in this manner. He asked that I remove his telephone numbers which I have done. * Currently the page is setup so that you go to another page to read (or add) comments for each paragraph or section. In a few days, I will make an alternate view (Bookview) which will show all the comments on the same page as the license. * Let me know what you think at some point. I've corresponded with John Cowan about his Elephant project, and this might be considered an interim approach until his project is ready. It did take a fair amount of work to set this up the first time, but if it proves worthwhile, some parts of the setup could be automated and/or required of the applicant. Randy Kramer Peter Thoeny, Just for your information. I think this might be considered TWiki advocacy or publicity ;-) I hope you can leave the necessary pages on the Test web for the foreseeable future. If you must take them down, I'd like to get copies of the .txt files to preserve. (I believe I can do this myself, as long as I have notice before you delete the files, assuming the files still have global read permission.) Randy Kramer Russell Nelson wrote: Karsten M. Self writes: I'll be happy to share my own methods of organizing, reading, and reviewing mail. If your tools are so good, why haven't you said a word about the three licenses supposedly under current discussion? To remind you, and everyone else: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3735:200108:ajlgmjcdbmmllniijbba http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3733:200108:lmhpmlehbejjkloffohl http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:3728:ecdccfkopamdkjccmffn is characterized by two conflicting desires: - Maintain a record of all discussion (or other relevant data). - Summarize, filter, and associate the most relevant data. Na. I just want to keep a record of the discussion about every license in one place. That way, when we board members go to review a license we can see everything you've said about a license. And we want the same thing for you, so that you can go look at the list of licenses and see what other people have said. And if nothing has been said, then perhaps you want to say something. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- 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
Re: forums
PS: I should have mentioned that twiki.org (on SourceForge) is experiencing a lot of 500 Internal Server Errors the past few days. A support request has been issued to SourceForge -- I don't know if anybody knows what the problem is at this time. (It *might* be a problem only for users of Internet Explorer.) If you experience the problem, simply refresh your view -- sometimes you may have to do it more than once. Randy Kramer Randy Kramer wrote: I have taken the liberty of making a TWiki page (actually pages) of the first license listed below. The intent is to provide a means of easily commenting and accumulating comments on the license, mostly on a per paragraph basis. Please try it out at: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Test/ForOsiApprovalOpenGroupTestSuiteLicense Some notes: -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
[Fwd: Re: forums]
Oops, tried to send this earlier, apparently screwed up the address during a cut and paste. ---BeginMessage--- John Cowan wrote: I am currently working on a set of tools called Elephant that implement IBIS. Elephant will be an open-source, Web plus email based implementation. For details on Elephant, see the following wiki entries: http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/?Elephant http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/?ElephantRefinements I urge anyone who wishes to collaborate with me on getting Elephant ready to roll, and who is a Perl programmer with some time to spare, to contact me. I could use some help. Interesting! I am trying to learn Perl, and have my hands full with that and other things for the foreseeable future (so I won't offer to help). Do you have a realistic estimate on when you'll have a working Elephant deployed? (I guess a realistic estimate would be based on the developer's currently working on the project, and the time they are able to devote to it.) Over on TWiki, there have been some discussions of IBIS, including some discussions on how to name pages in a wiki (or twiki) to serve as an IBIS based wiki, and some speculation on on improvements needed to TWiki to make it more suitable for IBIS. (PS: TWiki has the advantage over some wikis that it stores all revisions to each page.) If Elephant is quite a ways off, maybe it would be worth trying an IBIS approach on a standard TWiki. When I read Russel's post of today (Sun, 30 Sep 2001 00:20:16 -0400 (EDT)), I thought of taking one of the licenses he mentions and putting each clause on a separate TWiki page and then making the location known and inviting comment. (I might have even taken a stab at posting my immediate non thought-out position on each clause as to whether it did or did not meet the open source definition, just in an attempt to attract more cogent input.) If you think that is worthwhile, let me know. Randy Kramer ---End Message---
Re: forums
Karsten M. Self wrote:
Another alternative would be to utilize a format that tends toward
self-organizing content: Wiki or Everything2. Neither, however, is a
good choice for issues in which an archive of discussion is desired, as
both tools are designed with a strong mind to refactoring discussion.
The problem space (one I've spent more than a small time thinking about)
is characterized by two conflicting desires:
- Maintain a record of all discussion (or other relevant data).
- Summarize, filter, and associate the most relevant data.
I think a TWiki would be worth considering. It is a wiki that preserves
all history in RCS so they are available to everyone as diffs or the
ability to call up any past revision. Refactoring is the wiki way to
Summarize, filter, and associate the most relevant data.
Try going to:
http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/ReadmeFirst
Scroll to the bottom of the page and click on one diffs, an old version
(r1.nn), or a in this toolbar, or more to see the older revisions:
Topic ReadmeFirst . { Edit | Attach | Ref-By | Printable | Diffs | r1.17
| | r1.16 | | r1.15 | More }
Click on the index in this line (at the top of the page) to see a list
of other pages in that particular Web:
Codev . { Readme | Changes | Index | Search | Go
Try viewing one of those other pages. Clearly the subject matter is a
little different than open source licenses, but I think the approach is
very applicable.
There are several webs at twiki.org, and we could probably get Peter
Thoeny to create a new web for our use, at least on a trial basis. I
have installed TWiki on my home LAN. It was a little difficult because
it was my first foray into Linux. Having done it successfully (except
for mail notifications) it wouldn't be too hard to do another
installation of the particular version I used (the 20010315 beta which
is suitable for production use). There is a new release, but I haven't
installed it yet. There are some major changes to do to my templates
and so forth, so I will be taking my time.
Randy Kramer
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Randy Kramer wrote: PS: Just for kicks, I looked at some pages on www.opensource.org and counted 26 approved licenses, and see references to its (OSI's) formation about one week after February 3, 1988. Oops! Should be 1998-- Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Just a different $.02, but relevant I think. For Steve, I think that OSI recently started some other initiatives to try to speed up the license review process (isn't there at least one voluntary advisory committee reviewing one license?). For everyone: Maybe the OSI could publish a few figures, like: * How many licenses have been submitted for review * How many licenses have been approved or rejected * The average time from submission to approval or rejection (no matter how disheartening this may be, it at least lets customers with new licenses have an idea of what they're in for) I also (think I) know that the OSI has at times devoted their attention to licenses that they considered more important than others for one reason or another. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- if an IBM or HP or whoever seeks approval for a license that might bring them into the fold, I think most of us would like to see prompt attention to such licenses or issues. I was going to also suggest that OSI establish some sort of target throughput figures, for their own use, and for the user community. Even though the time from submission to approval or rejection may be rather long, I suspect the licenses are under active consideration for a much shorter period of time. In addition, I suspect that more than one license is under semi-active consideration at any one time (meaning someone reads it, has some questions, asks some questions, but goes on to the next license while waiting for a response). Can the OSI come up with some benchmark figures that they think are reasonable to achieve, maybe something like: Average time from start of active consideration to approval or rejection: 4 months Average license approvals: 1 / month (or average licenses that start active consideration) Maybe the figures should be divided to consider major licenses (those significantly different, or with clauses that appear to require considerable analyisis, compared to existing licenses) and minor licenses (licenses almost the same as other licenses, with minor changes but more than just name and address stuff). Maybe establish two different timelines, and maybe a reasonable target is approval (or rejection) of one major and one minor license per month. If the user community knows that, for example, 60 licenses have been submitted, and the OSI target is approval or rejection of one or two per month, they can see what they're in for, and may be more likely to choose to use an existing license, (possibly on an interim basis). The target for approval is just that -- a target, not a quota. If really measured it should not be judged on a monthly basis, but rather on something like a sliding 12 month window basis. In saying all this, I'm not sure how to treat or count a rejection, because rejections may not really be final -- they may just prompt the potential licensor to submit another round of modifications or arguments. Randy Kramer PS: Just for kicks, I looked at some pages on www.opensource.org and counted 26 approved licenses, and see references to its (OSI's) formation about one week after February 3, 1988. It's now about 43 months since then, so maybe one license (approved) per month is not far from reality . (I recognize that this is a pretty crude measurement for a lot of reasons -- I don't know whether OSI started attempting to approve licenses near that time or not, I don't know how many they rejected, etc.) And, as I'm sure Rick would ask, do we need more than 26 OSI licenses? Why? Aren't we just creating the Tower of Babel for Open Source Licenses? Which licenses are compatible with which other licenses? PS: For Steve -- there is a web site which attempts to compare some free licenses to help a software developer choose a license -- http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html. It was put together by Zooko O'Whielacronx. Steve Lhomme wrote: | begin Steve Lhomme quotation: | | First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. | | Ah, so yours was purely a _theoretical_ concern. Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the opensource.org website. | Well, please do talk to us about the evolutionary merit of some new | licence when you can actually point to one displaying such a trait. Well, I thought the OSI was there to approve or not the new licenses (you meet the rules, you don't meet the rules), not stop new ones because they don't add anything, anyway. Also if anybody create a new license (that's nearly my case, because I'm helping building a new open-source license), they'll be either reluctant to wait for an hypothetical OSI approval and will be waiting ages for nothing, or they just won't ask the OSI and start spreading it in other places. So what would the OSI be worth if they stop doing what they're here for ?! I know it takes time, and maybe money to do all that. But if they can't work on it anymore, why don't they say it ? (make
Re: copyright discussion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how can I ensure that I get e-mailed further discussions on this list? JEETUN6, You can subscribe to this list by sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are archives of this list somewhere (a link has been published on the list -- I know -- that doesn't help much), and one of the members of the list has started a summary of significant open source licenses. When I find that link I'll post it for you. For me, the discussion on this list is sometimes confusing and hard to follow, as there are quite a few different licenses and different terms associated with each. In answer to some of the questions in your previous post, there are restrictions on further use in some sense, and sometimes a fee can be charged. I hesitate to describe either of those, for fear of stating them incorrectly, but I'll make a brief try. Restrictions: most copyleft licenses restrict you in that if you create a derived work from a copylefted work, you must license the derived work under the same license as the original work from which it was derived. The intent (as I see it) is to prevent someone from taking freely licensed code and making it proprietary. Fee: a reasonable fee for copying can be charged, or a fee for other services (like support or a warranty) (and maybe even a fee for the software product), but it is subject to the natural limiting effect that someone can obtain the software from anyone else who has a copy for free (or a different copying fee set by them). As someone else has requested, please adjust your email client so it sends email as plain text. If you don't know how to do this, try checking: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Test/AvoidHTMLinEmail. If you are using an email client without instructions listed there, write back and I'll see if I (or someone else) can help you. regards, Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: documentation
Greg London wrote: David Johnson wrote: The OSI does not approve documentation licenses, only software licenses. Greg, There are some other open source or free documentation licenses. One place to look is http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL. There is also something like an open content license somewhere. As usual, there is some contoversy about which licenses are free, etc. Randy Kramer
[Fwd: Re: GPL and NDA]
Sorry, cut and pasted the address incorrectly. Randy Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This sort of claim is just plain wrong. The GPL is a license that the owner of the copyright provides to another person. If you create a deriviative work, then this work is covered by the GPL if and only if you as the creator decide to issue that license. IANAL I think maybe that your intent was that that license should read that derivative work? I mean what you are saying is that you create a derivative work for your own use, and don't distribute it, then there is no requirement that it be licensed under the GPL, and this is what you go on to say in the rest of your email. And, AFAIK, this is correct. However I have a concern that this creates a loophole -- not a legal loophole, an illegal loophole (AFAIK), but a loophole nevertheless. Let's say I create such a derivative work, and I don't GPL it. But I leave it somewhere (accidentally, with no malice aforethought) where somebody else finds it, with no copyright or GPL notice. Now they take it and use it as is or create a derivative work, and distribute it as a closed source program. What is the status in a case like that? If demonstrated that this is the case, can the genie be put back in the bottle so to speak? (Can the closed source derivative work be removed from circulation, be required to be relicensed under the GPL, and any collected fees be required to be returned?) Does the GPL require that the GPL licesnse be referenced even on the private derivative work, something like this software was derived from a GPL product, and it, or any product derived from it, cannot be distributed except under the terms of the GPL? How could you demonstrate that this is the case? Thanks, Randy Kramer Of course if you do NOT issue the license, and then distribute the work, you have violated the original copyright, but it can never be the case that something is automatically covered by the GPL. Furthermore, if you create the deriviative work solely for your own use, and do not distribute it, then there is absolutely no reason for you to issue any license to anyone for the deriviative work.
Re: Test
David, Thanks for the response! Unfortunately, I threw my bounce message before I saw your note. I may be wrong, but those message numbers (3172 and 3173) sure sound familiar. Next time I get a bounce message I'll record the numbers and then post them on the list. I thought it was a problem with my ISP. Maybe it is, like Karsten says, a few bad eggs subscribed to the list or FSB(?). (What's the FSB?) These few bad eggs -- can we do anything about them? On another list I subscribe to something similar happens occasionally. The list administrator tries to contact the bad eggs and if he gets no response he unsubscribes them. Thanks for the information! Randy Kramer David Johnson wrote: On Monday 30 April 2001 19:44, Karsten M. Self wrote: There are a few bad eggs subscribed to either this list or FSB whose mailers bounce back to me. I'll report if I get any bounces from this post. If it helps, the messages that got bounced for me were 3172 and 3173... -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Test
David, Did you get a message from the mailing list or a mail administrator or something like that, telling you that the last few messages to you bounced? If so, let's compare notes -- I get these occasionally (every few months), yet I can't imagine why. Randy Kramer David Johnson wrote: This is a test. Please ignore. It seems that messages are not reaching me, and I am trying to figure out why... -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
Randy Kramer wrote: The approved Open Source licenses have been approved on the basis that we (the OSF or whatever) believe the terms of the approved licenses achieve the objectives stated above." After a little more thought, maybe I'd want to rephrase the preceding more like: The approved Open Source licenses have been approved on the basis that we (the OSF or whatever) believe the language of the approved licenses is consistent with the objectives stated above." It's probably irrelevant, because I don't see anyone jumping at the chance to draft such a statement. The reason for my change is to try to make it clear that I (we) are worried about how the language might be (mis) interpreted -- the hope is that the statement of intent is very clear and concise, and if there is some legal gobbledygook in the language of the license that could be interpreted in more than one way, our intent is that it be interpreted in accordance with the clear, concise statement of intent. IANAL, IANAL, IANAL Randy Kramer
Re: Archives
Bjorn, A few more things before I send the files: Netscape folders are normal mbox files, aren't they? Yes, AFAIK, except: 1. There is an associated index file (.snm) which you can just ignore. 2. I collected these on Windows, so I suspect they will have a crlf where Linux expects just a lf. 3. I will zip them using WinZip. I believe you will be able to unzip it with Linux tools because WinZip can unzip .gz files. If you know you cannot handle these, let me know -- I can move it to my Linux box (after I reestablish a connection) and use gzip or whatever. It will still have the crlf problem. 4. The batch I will send you first is about 2 megs zipped, 8 megs unzipped. Will that be a problem? 5. The first batch ends around August, 2000. When we confirm working arrangements, I will zip the remainder, from then until now. 6. I subscribe to several mail lists. I sometimes filed posts from other mail lists in this file if they seemed relevant to open source licensing issues. Randy Kramer PS: I will not send the zips to the list, but to you directly. ;-) (Unless someone requests otherwise ;-)
