Re: GPL and internal use

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> There seemed to be a great debate a few years back regarding whether a company
> could augment GPL software for its own, private use and never release any
> modified sources. The general consensus from googling around seems to be: yes,
> GPL does allow that (doesn't bode well for dual licensing which relies on the
> viral, er, reciprocal qualities of GPL, especially since the majority of
> software development occurs within private company use...)
>
> I'd like to know the parameters or limits of this, if any.
>
> For example, Trolltech seems to take a severe view of distribution in GPL,
> possibly because their old QPL explicitly disallows internal distribution
> without opening the code.
>
> See http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/license_gpl.html#q112.

i suppose it depends on how 'you' is defined.  if it is the overall
entity, such as a company, using it internally doesn't count as
distributing it.  it's only when the entity shares the code involved
with another entity that this kicks in.

see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
i think that makes it pretty clear.

all imho, and ianal.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> That is a very complex set of issues.  First, the patent is not only
> licensed under the ASL2 -- it is actually licensed by the contributor
> to the ASF and any recipient of the ASF's software as part of their
> contribution. The Apache License makes the recipient aware of that
> license and the condition of reciprocity (as accepted by our
> community of contributors) under which that license was granted.
> The ASF does not have the right to sublicense any such patent;
> we merely pass the license along from the contributors.

except that the 2.0 apache licence can, by design, be used unaltered
by other entities than the asf -- so does the above continue to
make sense if 'ASF' is replaced by any other entity?  i think it does.
let's not lose sight of the fact that the licensor applying the
licence to its work may be something other than the asf.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> 
> I do wonder about
> 5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any
> Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the
> Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without
> any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing
> herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement
> you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
> 
> Can you do that in a copyright license?

'copyright licence'?  what's that?

this clause is intended to cover all submissions to the licensor
without having to explicitly execute any other document.  for
example, most (hopefully soon to be all) of the asf's committers
have submitted CLAs (contributor licence agreements) which basically
describe the terms of their submissions.  however, stuff that comes
in through the mailing lists or issue trackers in the form of
patches *isn't* covered by a cla.  this clause addresses that.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

apache license 2.0 for consideration

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

i don't think anyone has submitted it yet.  the apache software
foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to
submit it for osi approval.  it's online at

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

and i'm attaching the text version to this message.

it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant
as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl
to boot.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"


 Apache License
   Version 2.0, January 2004
http://www.apache.org/licenses/

   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION

   1. Definitions.

  "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction,
  and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.

  "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by
  the copyright owner that is granting the License.

  "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all
  other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common
  control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition,
  "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
  direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
  otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
  outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.

  "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity
  exercising permissions granted by this License.

  "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
  including but not limited to software source code, documentation
  source, and configuration files.

  "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
  transformation or translation of a Source form, including but
  not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,
  and conversions to other media types.

  "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
  Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
  copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
  (an example is provided in the Appendix below).

  "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
  form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
  editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
  represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes
  of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain
  separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,
  the Work and Derivative Works thereof.

  "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
  the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
  to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
  submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
  or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
  the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
  means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
  to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
  communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
  and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
  Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
  excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
  designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."

  "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity
  on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and
  subsequently incorporated within the Work.

   2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
  this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
  worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
  copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
  publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
  Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

   3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
  this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
  worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
  (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,
  use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
  where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
  by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their

Re: The Invisible Hand

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

"Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> 
> on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:51:53PM -0400, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Martin Konold writes:
> >  > According to RMS the only way to become free software aka "GPL
> >  > compatible" is either to have it GPL licensed or allow for
> >  > conversion/relicensing to GPL.
> >
> > I believe this is an accurate statement.
> 
> Half-accurate.

And possibly not even that.  rms has stated that Apache
and stuff licenced under the Apache licence are free software,
although he also maintains that the GPL and the Apache
licence are incompatible.  (Roy Fielding and others disagree.)
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: W3C license

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
> 
> I think we agree on everything but the value of trying to get the
> current process more effective over doing a complete overhaul.

Okey, I can go along with that. :-)
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: W3C license

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 
> > "This has the beneficial effect of making it harder to create Yet
> > Another open source license."
> 
> To address that statement in particular, it was reducing the
> workload placed uon the volunteers of the OSI that had this
> particular benefit.

See below.

> Realistically, paring down the number of submissions is as
> necessary as paring down the number of approvals.

Given the current process, that is most likely true.  But since
I do not believe the current process is as good as it could be,
I do not consider that truth to be an absolute one.

Possible improvement #1: if the load is too much for the
current volunteer base.. get more volunteers.

Problem: 'We cannot squeeze this many data through this wire.'
Current solution: 'Do not try; send fewer data.'
Alternate solution: 'Get a bigger wire.'
Other alternates are possible.

> Presumably, a license which does something new and interesting
> will either a) have someone who already put in the time to develop
> this new and different license, and is clearly motivated, or
> b) get a tenacious third party sufficiently interested to do
> the work.

Um, judging from the threads of the last fortnight, that just
ain't happening with the current model.  It sounds as though
there are several motivated people, but the task they have been
assigned is Sisyphean.  It is not due to their lack of motivation
that the licences in question are not being approved, nor to
duplication of existing approved ones, but apparently to the
inertia and other problems of the current process.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: W3C license

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> > Or, to quote Russ exactly, "This has the beneficial effect of making
> > it harder to create Yet Another open source license."
> 
> The correctness of Russ's statement as posted should be apparent.  I
> fail to see the utility of debate.

Well, then, I guess you fail to see it.  That does not make
the statement correct, however.  Nor does it make mine correct,
either. :-)  The fact that I disagree with the correctness as
posted makes your first sentence a no-op.

> Perhaps you should contemplate the connotations of Russ's phrase
> "Yet Another open source license."  I think most people got his
> point without exegesis.

Perhaps you should contemplate my remarks and position on their
own merits rather than trying to tell me I should not have them
because I misunderstood something.  It is only *your* opinion
that I have misunderstood; I think I have understood perfectly.

Words are tools.  Particularly when discussing licences, they
are edged tools.  Ambiguity and implication and assuming the
reader understands what the author meant should be avoided.

Sorry, Rick, but so far it appears to me that you are trying to
handwave away my objections to Russ' remark and the apparent
attitude behind it.

And for what it is worth, Russ himself agreed with my position
in a private email.  Apparently I explained it better to him
than I have done here.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: W3C license

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> To be really explicit, then:  You indulged the time-honoured
> pastime of setting up a caricature of your interlocutor's
> position and then knocking it down.

If I did, I assure you it was unintentional. :-)  If anything,
I think you may have been guilty of this before I, since it was
you who changed the text tomake it appear that I was against
proliferating licences. :-)  I am not against that at all -- what
I am against, and apparently failed to make clear, was the
attitude in the original post that supports 'making it harder to
create a new licence is beneficial.'  Or, to quote Russ exactly,
"This has the beneficial effect of making it harder to create Yet
Another open source license."

I agree with keeping the number of essentially identical licences
to a minimum.  I do *not* agree with accomplishing that by
discouraging people from trying.

Is that any more clear? :-)
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: W3C license

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> begin Rodent of Unusual Size quotation:
> 
> > 'Discouraging proliferation' != 'making it harder to create'.
> > This attitude seems equivalent to saying, 'Okey, we have all the
> > good licencing ideas there ever will be, close the doors'
> 
> Spot the irrelevant straw-man argument.  No points.

Um, excuse me?  I suspect I would like to respond, but since your
remark is so cryptic I am not sure ehat it is saying..
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: W3C license

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> begin Rodent of Unusual Size quotation:
> 
> >> This has the beneficial effect of making it
> >> harder to create Yet Another open source license.
> >
> > I continue to feel that the 'benefit' is a matter of
> > opinion, not a certainty nor natural law.
> 
> Licence compatibility issues involving n-factorial licences?
> Surely the benefit of discouraging their proliferation is
> self-evident.

'Discouraging proliferation' != 'making it harder to create'.
This attitude seems equivalent to saying, 'Okey, we have all the
good licencing ideas there ever will be, close the doors' -- which
is, IMHO, shortsighted and downright stupid.

Yes, new licences need to add some unique value or combination
not already represented in an existing licence -- but the
limiting condition is the existing licence base, NOT the narrow
attitudes of people who do not want to do it anymore.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: W3C license

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Russell Nelson wrote:
> 
> This has the beneficial effect of making it
> harder to create Yet Another open source license.

I continue to feel that the 'benefit' is a matter of
opinion, not a certainty nor natural law.  Therefore
I continue to object -- courteously -- to remarks that
take it as a given and axiomatic to the industry.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: approved licenses web page not being updated

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> (I'm not referring to obviously needed adjustments like IBM's
> Common Public License

I am not sure how to interpret this.  Are you saying the
IPL (grin) needs adjustment?  Or that it *was* an adjustment,
and a welcome one?  Or what?
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Apache Software Foundation http://www.apache.org/
"Apache Server for Dummies"http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Apache Server Unleashed"  http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/

Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Ian Stokes-Rees wrote:
> 
> Second, my mistake was in wording: We are not going to turn over
> our software to Apache

I did not think you were..

> I mean that we are considering releasing it under an Apache _style_
> license, basically using v1.1 as the template.

We are working on a new version that does not contain all the
ASFisms, fwiw. :-)

> If we were to do this, and subsequent developers were to do the
> same, then each developer who redistributed the accumulated code
> base with new files and entirely new code which they put under
> _their_ version of Apache License, the credits list would grow
> and grow.

That is a consequence of the ASFisms or their replacements, not
the licence terms themselves..

> This is my _understanding_ of what happens when people use Apache,
> and that it was the major criticism of the original BSD license,
> hence the new BSD license.

And hence the Apache 1.1 licence revision, which mirrored that
change in the BSD licence.

> Finally, it was mentioned that (to quote): "... the Apache
> licence (which is *not* the Apache 'Public' licence, btw) ...".
> I was under the impression that the Apache License was, at times,
> refered to as the Apache Public License.

True; that is no longer the case, however, and we are trying
to avoid the propagation of additional such references.  Thank
you for the links..
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 
"Apache Server Unleashed"   

ApacheCon 2001!
Four tracks with over 70+ sessions. Free admission to exhibits
and special events - keynote presentations by John 'maddog' Hall
and David Brin. Special thanks to our Platinum Sponsors IBM and
Covalent, Gold Sponsor Thawte, and Silver Sponsor Compaq.  Attend
the only Apache event designed and fully supported by the members of
the ASF. See more information and register at !

Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Ian Stokes-Rees wrote:
> 
> We are looking at open sourcing a software project and are currently
> trying to evaluate BSD vs. Apache.  The issue is that our code base
> includes Xerces-C (XML parser) which is under Apache Public License.
> The implication, then, is that for both subsequent source and binary
> distributions there is the requirement to a) include the APL (this
> makes sense and isn't a problem), and b) include credits in binary
> only distributions (more annoying).

What clause of the Apache licence (which is *not* the Apache 'Public'
licence, btw) requires you to accrete credit?  All it says is that
if you use stuff from the ASF, you need to say so.  A one-liner,
plus the Apache licence file, ought to be sufficient.

> I understand that the FSF position on this is that the APL is GPL
> incompatible because otherwise the required list of creditors
> grows and grows with every person who makes individual
> contributions which are not signed over to one of the current
> "owners".

That is not the case.  Nothing in the Apache licence requires
anything of the kind.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 
"Apache Server Unleashed"   

ApacheCon 2001!
Four tracks with over 70+ sessions. Free admission to exhibits
and special events - keynote presentations by John 'maddog' Hall
and David Brin. Special thanks to our Platinum Sponsors IBM and
Covalent, Gold Sponsor Thawte, and Silver Sponsor Compaq.  Attend
the only Apache event designed and fully supported by the members of
the ASF. See more information and register at !

Re: trademarked logos and GPL

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

"Lawrence E. Rosen" 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.
People should be cautious of following legal advice from
others not skilled/conversant with the law, but DON'T try
to put a gag instruction on non-lawyers.  I'm not the least
bit interested in furthering the legal closed-shop
environment, and I personally would encourage the opposite --
anyone with an opinion should feel free to express it,
with the usual 'IANAL' caveat.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 
"Apache Server Unleashed"   

Re: How About The Apache License?

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

John Cowan wrote:
> 
> The Apache license is just the old BSD license, with what is sometimes
> called "the obnoxious advertising clause".

That clause was removed in 1.1 of the Apache licence.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 
"Apache Server Unleashed"   

Re: Apache v. GPL

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

I should point out that V1.1 of the Apache licence has followed the
model of new-BSD; see .

Is this new licence now GPL-compatible?
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 
"Apache Server Unleashed"   

Re: Some general principles of naming

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> The GNU Project is the system's principal developer, so GNU ought to
> be first in the list.

You've said this before, and you've yet to convince me.
I do not believe you can fairly make the 'principal developer'
claim unless the project was working to the same goals as
the Linux project.  Which, to the best of my knowledge,
it wasn't.  GNU was working toward *a* free Unix-like
system.  They have, AFAIK, been unsuccessful in achieving
that goal to date.  However, much of the work they put into
that effort was adopted by *a* system project which *did*
complete a similar goal.

Assume I wrote 100K lines of code, and didn't achieve the overall
goal I had in mind when writing it.  Nevertheless, the code
worked inasfar as it had progressed.  Now someone else takes that,
adds 10K lines of their own, and achieves a goal almost identical
to my original one.  It sounds as though, by your lights, I
would be the 'principal developer' of the result.  By my lights,
however, I would be, perhaps, the 'principal contributor,' and
I would make it clear that I had *not* been working on the
latter project, or contributing effort to make it succeed.

I continue to regard your position as an attempt at dog-in-the-
mangerism, capitalising on someone else's success to promote
something which can already stand more than well enough on its
own merits.  The Gnu Project can't claim to have achieved the
goal of a complete free Unix-like system because it *didn't*.
Someone else did, but, as Daniel Posin said, they stood on the
shoulders of giants.  For the giants to claim they saw the
same thing as those on their shoulders is inappropriate.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> Quoting Rodent of Unusual Size ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 
> > I think the problem with this approach is that it appears
> > to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is
> > part of the GNU project.
> 
> This is a factual error, and functions here as a straw-man argument:
> I have never known Stallman to be less than very clear on the
> distinction between GPLed software and GNU software.

I believe you misunderstand me.  I was in no way claiming
anything about the GPL or Richard; I was pointing out what
seems (to me) to be a flaw in a proposed alteration to the
GPL.  GPL != GNU, but Alex's suggested change seemed (again,
to me) to be treating it as GPL == GNU.  I was merely pointing
this out.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar<http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation  <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://ASFD.MeepZor.Com/>

Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Alex Nicolaou wrote:
> 
> However, since credit is important to you, it is worth
> releasing a new version of the GPL which includes a statement
> of the terms that require distributors of GNU software to
> awknowledge that their distribution contains GNU software.

I think the problem with this approach is that it appears
to assume that anything that is released under the GPL is
part of the GNU project.  I don't believe that's the
case.

FWIW, I don't like the GPL and don't plan to ever release
anything under it.  But I'm trying to be objective. :-)
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 

Re: "rights" and "freedoms"

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

David Johnson wrote:
> 
> and 4) Just sell the software. Enough people will buy it to
> support the developers. Yeah, right! Why give $59.95 to AbiSource
> when I can get it for $2 from cheapbytes along with everything
> else on a Linux distro.
> 
> So, all in all, I don't see any way for AbiSource to legitimately
> make money. Am I missing something very basic?

Dunno.  My sister just sold on eBay for US$12 some brand-name
chocolate she bought for US$4.99.  Barnum's Theorem would
seem to be a factor here.  Why do people pay US$50 (or is it
US$75 now?) for Red Hat's distribution when it's on the
'net for the price of the bandwidth?  Why do people buy
paper copies of books and documents available for free on the
'net?

I don't know the answers, but it certainly seems possible that
there are some, and that they could potentially apply here.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 

Re: GNU License for Hardware

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> If you are inspired by the GNU Project and the Free Software movement,
> I hope you will choose a name that refers to freedom.  The word "open"
> calls to mind the Open Source movement, which differs from the Free
> Software movement in rejecting all talk of freedom, principle and
> other non-material benefits.

I think that everything from 'in rejecting' onward is unnecessary.
Let your work stand on its own merits; don't descend to name-calling
and mudslinging.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 

Re: new license to review

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Russell Nelson wrote:
> 
> Someone wrote, and they weren't the only one:
>  > Why the sighs Russ?  If we wanted only one license for software, I'm
>  > sure Microsoft would be glad to assist :-).
> 
> Because it doesn't seem all that different from existing licenses, and
> because license proliferation inhibits code reuse.  The major effect
> of Open Source code is to reduce the transaction cost of using it.

Well, either the submitter doesn't see the similarity, or else
you/we aren't registering the dissimilarity that's at issue.
The former sounds like an educate-the-masses issue; isn't that
part of the mission?  And the latter is education for us.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies" 

And another licence submitted

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

I submitted the licence text pointed to by



a couple of weeks ago (prior to joining this
list), but haven't heard anything nor seen
anything about it.  So I'm submitting it for
review again.

Why?  Partially because none of the licences
I saw listed quite met my intentions, and
partially (a much smaller part) as a test case
for my understanding of the OSD.
-- 
#ken  P-)}

Ken Coar
Apache Software Foundation  
"Apache Server for Dummies"