Re: NASM Licence

[SamBC]

Basically, the GPL-related info in the license is one big paradox. I think
that is pretty clear.


SamBC

- Original Message -
From: "Nelson Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dave J Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "License-Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 6:23 PM
Subject: RE: NASM Licence


> Right.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:45 AM
> To: License-Discuss
> Subject: RE: NASM Licence
>
>
> > From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd
> > code,
> > but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the
> > GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference.
> >
> [DJW:]  That would appear to make the resulting licence
> to distribute void under clause 7 of the GPL; any
> redistribution would be a copyright violation for the
> GPLed parts.
>
> --
> --- 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.
>
>
> >
>
>

Re: NASM Licence

[Frank Kotler]

Hi Zak,
(I'm replying "to" you, and "cc" the list. Is that the approved
procedure?)

> Clause X is very ambiguous.  What exactly does:
> "In addition to what this Licence otherwise provides, the Software
> may be distributed in such a way as to be compliant with the GNU
> General Public Licence..." mean?
> 
> It sounds like a Captain-Kirkesque logic trap used to defeat evil computer
> entities.  Perhaps it is a logic bomb left for Richard Stallman: I can
> picture it now "Mmmm... Clause X - GPL Compatible... no wait, clause IV -
> proprietary licensing... no wait.. clause X..."
> Repeat til beard explodes into flame.

Reminds me of the old "The statement on the other side of this card is
false"/"The statement on the other side of this card is true" trick!

> (Note: I am not worthy to scrape the finger gunk off of RMS's hallowed
> keyboard -- I just can't resist poking a wee bit of fun...)

I hope he can take a little ribbing - if not, he shouldn'ta stuck his
head up. I like RMS's ideas, but I don't think it's the *only* viewpoint
worth considering.
 
> Seriously -- the clause sounds like it is based on the best of intentions.
> If the license is GPL-compatible (or the authors found it palatable to make
> it compatible) then perhaps adding a simple statement indicating that the
> license is GPL friendly would satisfy everyone?

Mmmm. Wouldn't that just be a repeat of clause X? In actual fact, the
Nasm licence *isn't* very GPL-friendly. For starters, it never mentions
"source code" at all (surprised someone hasn't mentioned that - maybe
someone has, is there an archive?). It retains some (trivial, IMO)
rights for the "original authors" - rather fuzzily defined in clause XI
- how are we to determine who S & J "feel has contributed
significantly"? Selling the software is prohibited (except with
permission from the "original authors").  I really wouldn't want to see
the Nasm licence on the OSI web-page as an example license that people
are urged to adopt.

Nonetheless, I'd like to see "OSI certified", because it could remain on
SourceForge - else they're evicting us. While the Nasm licence isn't
explicitly an "open-source" license, it makes no mention of restricting
the source, and in fact the source is generally (always?) available
right alongside the binaries. As I recall, the "original authors"
intention was to not prohibit distribution of the binary as a "free
disk" in a magazine, or whatever, without source. You've gotta remember
that it was written by a couple young students, several years ago. It's
"free software" as opposed to "shareware" (or commercial), tho not
precisely by RMS's definition. Nasm was intended to be freely
distributable, and has always come with source. It isn't a "clandestine
source" license!

If OSI won't approve it - which wouldn't surprise me too much (tho
Debian distributes Nasm, and if OSI's definition is based on Debian's...
oh-oh, here we go again :), the web-site says they'll help resolve
problems. If their advice is forwarded to Julian, perhaps he'll agree
(he's said he doesn't like GPL, and "would prefer an alternative"). In
any case, we'd know where we stand with SourceForge.

Perhaps just a "Clause XIII - The source code shall always be
available." would make everyone happy. Doubt it'll be that simple.
 
Best,
Frank

RE: NASM Licence

[Nelson Rush]

Right.

-Original Message-
From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:45 AM
To: License-Discuss
Subject: RE: NASM Licence


> From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd
> code,
> but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the
> GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference.
> 
[DJW:]  That would appear to make the resulting licence
to distribute void under clause 7 of the GPL; any 
redistribution would be a copyright violation for the
GPLed parts.

-- 
--- 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.


>  

RE: NASM Licence

[Dave J Woolley]

> From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd
> code,
> but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the
> GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference.
> 
[DJW:]  That would appear to make the resulting licence
to distribute void under clause 7 of the GPL; any 
redistribution would be a copyright violation for the
GPLed parts.

-- 
--- 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.


>  

RE: NASM Licence

[Nelson Rush]

Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd code,
but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the
GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference.

-Original Message-
From: Zak Greant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 11:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: License-Discuss
Subject: Re: NASM Licence



David Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Zak Greant wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > It does seem odd.  AFAIK open source programs usually have the same
> > license, regardless of distribution method/platform/etc...  Also, if
the
> > product is supposed to be distributed under the GPL, then why the
> > supplementary add-on licensing information?
>
> That "supplementary add-on licensing" IS the license for NASM.
>
> I'm guessing that Debian interpreted clause X as meaning that NASM could
be
> distributed under the GPL. This is currently under debate in several
> quarters. The clause *is* problematic, and I can see validity on both
sides.
> Considering that event the authors of NASM can't agree as to the meaning
of
> clause X, Debian should have kept it under its original license (as
demanded
> in clause VII).

Clause X is very ambiguous.  What exactly does:
"In addition to what this Licence otherwise provides, the Software
may be distributed in such a way as to be compliant with the GNU
General Public Licence..." mean?

It sounds like a Captain-Kirkesque logic trap used to defeat evil computer
entities.  Perhaps it is a logic bomb left for Richard Stallman: I can
picture it now "Mmmm... Clause X - GPL Compatible... no wait, clause IV -
proprietary licensing... no wait.. clause X..."
Repeat til beard explodes into flame.
(Note: I am not worthy to scrape the finger gunk off of RMS's hallowed
keyboard -- I just can't resist poking a wee bit of fun...)

Seriously -- the clause sounds like it is based on the best of intentions.
If the license is GPL-compatible (or the authors found it palatable to make
it compatible) then perhaps adding a simple statement indicating that the
license is GPL friendly would satisfy everyone?

Someone remarked that the consensus on the list was that the license was
not GPL compatible -- does anyone remember what items were considered
sticky?

 --zak

Re: NASM Licence

[Zak Greant]

At 07:40 AM 10/18/00 -0400, Frank Kotler wrote:
>Hi Zak,
>(I'm replying "to" you, and "cc" the list. Is that the approved
>procedure?)
> > Clause X is very ambiguous.  What exactly does:
> > "In addition to what this Licence otherwise provides, the Software
> > may be distributed in such a way as to be compliant with the GNU
> > General Public Licence..." mean?
> >
> > It sounds like a Captain-Kirkesque logic trap used to defeat evil computer
> > entities.  Perhaps it is a logic bomb left for Richard Stallman: I can
> > picture it now "Mmmm... Clause X - GPL Compatible... no wait, clause IV -
> > proprietary licensing... no wait.. clause X..."
> > Repeat til beard explodes into flame.
>
>Reminds me of the old "The statement on the other side of this card is
>false"/"The statement on the other side of this card is true" trick!
>
> > (Note: I am not worthy to scrape the finger gunk off of RMS's hallowed
> > keyboard -- I just can't resist poking a wee bit of fun...)
>
>I hope he can take a little ribbing - if not, he shouldn'ta stuck his
>head up. I like RMS's ideas, but I don't think it's the *only* viewpoint
>worth considering.
>
> > Seriously -- the clause sounds like it is based on the best of intentions.
> > If the license is GPL-compatible (or the authors found it palatable to make
> > it compatible) then perhaps adding a simple statement indicating that the
> > license is GPL friendly would satisfy everyone?
>
>Mmmm. Wouldn't that just be a repeat of clause X?

Hmmm... 

>In actual fact, the
>Nasm licence *isn't* very GPL-friendly. For starters, it never mentions
>"source code" at all (surprised someone hasn't mentioned that - maybe
>someone has, is there an archive?). It retains some (trivial, IMO)
>rights for the "original authors" - rather fuzzily defined in clause XI
>- how are we to determine who S & J "feel has contributed
>significantly"? Selling the software is prohibited (except with
>permission from the "original authors").  I really wouldn't want to see
>the Nasm licence on the OSI web-page as an example license that people
>are urged to adopt.
>
>Nonetheless, I'd like to see "OSI certified", because it could remain on
>SourceForge - else they're evicting us. While the Nasm licence isn't
>explicitly an "open-source" license, it makes no mention of restricting
>the source, and in fact the source is generally (always?) available
>right alongside the binaries. As I recall, the "original authors"
>intention was to not prohibit distribution of the binary as a "free
>disk" in a magazine, or whatever, without source. You've gotta remember
>that it was written by a couple young students, several years ago. It's
>"free software" as opposed to "shareware" (or commercial), tho not
>precisely by RMS's definition. Nasm was intended to be freely
>distributable, and has always come with source. It isn't a "clandestine
>source" license!
>
>If OSI won't approve it - which wouldn't surprise me too much (tho
>Debian distributes Nasm, and if OSI's definition is based on Debian's...
>oh-oh, here we go again :), the web-site says they'll help resolve
>problems. If their advice is forwarded to Julian, perhaps he'll agree
>(he's said he doesn't like GPL, and "would prefer an alternative"). In
>any case, we'd know where we stand with SourceForge.
>
>Perhaps just a "Clause XIII - The source code shall always be
>available." would make everyone happy. Doubt it'll be that simple.

It sounds like the license needs a good rewrite.  The authors need to 
decide if they really want to hang on to the elements of the license that 
are not OSI (and GPL, if desired) compatible.

Of course, they could just use (or tweak) an existing OSI-approved 
license... :)

  --zak

Re: NASM Licence

[Zak Greant]

David Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Zak Greant wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > It does seem odd.  AFAIK open source programs usually have the same
> > license, regardless of distribution method/platform/etc...  Also, if
the
> > product is supposed to be distributed under the GPL, then why the
> > supplementary add-on licensing information?
>
> That "supplementary add-on licensing" IS the license for NASM.
>
> I'm guessing that Debian interpreted clause X as meaning that NASM could
be
> distributed under the GPL. This is currently under debate in several
> quarters. The clause *is* problematic, and I can see validity on both
sides.
> Considering that event the authors of NASM can't agree as to the meaning
of
> clause X, Debian should have kept it under its original license (as
demanded
> in clause VII).

Clause X is very ambiguous.  What exactly does:
"In addition to what this Licence otherwise provides, the Software
may be distributed in such a way as to be compliant with the GNU
General Public Licence..." mean?

It sounds like a Captain-Kirkesque logic trap used to defeat evil computer
entities.  Perhaps it is a logic bomb left for Richard Stallman: I can
picture it now "Mmmm... Clause X - GPL Compatible... no wait, clause IV -
proprietary licensing... no wait.. clause X..."
Repeat til beard explodes into flame.
(Note: I am not worthy to scrape the finger gunk off of RMS's hallowed
keyboard -- I just can't resist poking a wee bit of fun...)

Seriously -- the clause sounds like it is based on the best of intentions.
If the license is GPL-compatible (or the authors found it palatable to make
it compatible) then perhaps adding a simple statement indicating that the
license is GPL friendly would satisfy everyone?

Someone remarked that the consensus on the list was that the license was
not GPL compatible -- does anyone remember what items were considered
sticky?

 --zak

RE: NASM Licence

[Nelson Rush]

Section X, which refers to the GPL, was added on to the original licence
later on by Julian Hall and Simon Tatham.

-Original Message-
From: Zak Greant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:36 PM
To: Frank Kotler
Cc: License-Discuss
Subject: Re: NASM Licence


Hi Frank,

It does seem odd.  AFAIK open source programs usually have the same
license, regardless of distribution method/platform/etc...  Also, if the
product is supposed to be distributed under the GPL, then why the
supplementary add-on licensing information?

  --zak


At 10:24 AM 10/17/00 -0400, Frank Kotler wrote:
>Zak Greant wrote:
>
> > This being the first message that I have seen since joining this list
some
> > days ago, I would guess that all of the OSI members are quite busy with
> > other projects.
> > However, if you repost your license, I would be happy to comment.  My
> > uninformed opinions should be just the bait needed to attract better
minds
> > to the discussion. ;)
>
>Hi Zak,
>
>Here's an interesting "varient" of the Nasm licence. This is apparently
>what gets packaged with the Debian distribution of Nasm. Named just
>"copyright". I don't know what to think of it.
>
>Best,
>Frank
>
>--
>Upstream sources of nasm were obtained from
><ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/software/devel/nasm/>.
>
>The original authors are Julian Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
>Simon Tatham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
>nasm was packaged for Debian by Vincent Renardias
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.  The current Debian maintainer is Matej Vela
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
>nasm is distributed under the GNU General Public License.
>
>  Terms and Conditions for the use of the Netwide Assembler
>  =
>
>  Can I have the gist without reading the legalese?
>  -
>
>  Basically, NASM is free. You can't charge for it. You can copy it
>as
>  much as you like. You can incorporate it, or bits of it, into other
>  free programs if you want. (But we want to know about it if you do,
>  and we want to be mentioned in the credits.) We may well allow you
>  to incorporate it into commercial software too, but we'll probably
>  demand some money for it, and we'll certainly demand to be given
>  credit. And in extreme cases (although I can't immediately think of
>  a reason we might actually want to do this) we may refuse to let
>you
>  do it at all.
>
>  NASM LICENCE AGREEMENT
>  ==
>
>  By "the Software" this licence refers to the complete contents of
>  the NASM archive, excluding this licence document itself, and
>  excluding the contents of the `test' directory. The Netwide
>  Disassembler, NDISASM, is specifically included under this licence.
>
>  I. The Software is freely redistributable; anyone may copy the
>  Software, or parts of the Software, and give away as many copies as
>  they like to anyone, as long as this licence document is kept with
>  the Software. Charging a fee for the Software is prohibited,
>  although a fee may be charged for the act of transferring a copy,
>  and you can offer warranty protection and charge a fee for that.
>
>  II. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other
>  freely redistributable software (by which we mean software that may
>  be obtained free of charge) without requiring permission from the
>  authors, as long as due credit is given to the authors of the
>  Software in the resulting work, as long as the authors are informed
>  of this action if possible, and as long as those parts of the
>  Software that are used remain under this licence.
>
>  III. Modified forms of the Software may be created and distributed
>  as long as the authors are informed of this action if possible, as
>  long as the resulting work remains under this licence, as long as
>  the modified form of the Software is distributed with documentation
>  which still gives credit to the original authors of the Software,
>  and as long as the modified form of the Software is distributed
>with
>  a clear statement that it is not the original form of the Software
>  in the form that it was distributed by the authors.
>
>  IV. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other
>  software which is not freely redistributable (i.e. software for
>  which a fee is charged), as long as permission is granted from the
>  

Re: NASM Licence

[David Johnson]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Zak Greant wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
> It does seem odd.  AFAIK open source programs usually have the same 
> license, regardless of distribution method/platform/etc...  Also, if the 
> product is supposed to be distributed under the GPL, then why the 
> supplementary add-on licensing information?

That "supplementary add-on licensing" IS the license for NASM.

I'm guessing that Debian interpreted clause X as meaning that NASM could be
distributed under the GPL. This is currently under debate in several
quarters. The clause *is* problematic, and I can see validity on both sides.
Considering that event the authors of NASM can't agree as to the meaning of
clause X, Debian should have kept it under its original license (as demanded
in clause VII).

-- 
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org

Re: NASM Licence

[Zak Greant]

Hi Frank,

It does seem odd.  AFAIK open source programs usually have the same 
license, regardless of distribution method/platform/etc...  Also, if the 
product is supposed to be distributed under the GPL, then why the 
supplementary add-on licensing information?

  --zak


At 10:24 AM 10/17/00 -0400, Frank Kotler wrote:
>Zak Greant wrote:
>
> > This being the first message that I have seen since joining this list some
> > days ago, I would guess that all of the OSI members are quite busy with
> > other projects.
> > However, if you repost your license, I would be happy to comment.  My
> > uninformed opinions should be just the bait needed to attract better minds
> > to the discussion. ;)
>
>Hi Zak,
>
>Here's an interesting "varient" of the Nasm licence. This is apparently
>what gets packaged with the Debian distribution of Nasm. Named just
>"copyright". I don't know what to think of it.
>
>Best,
>Frank
>
>--
>Upstream sources of nasm were obtained from
>.
>
>The original authors are Julian Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
>Simon Tatham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
>nasm was packaged for Debian by Vincent Renardias
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.  The current Debian maintainer is Matej Vela
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
>nasm is distributed under the GNU General Public License.
>
>  Terms and Conditions for the use of the Netwide Assembler
>  =
>
>  Can I have the gist without reading the legalese?
>  -
>
>  Basically, NASM is free. You can't charge for it. You can copy it
>as
>  much as you like. You can incorporate it, or bits of it, into other
>  free programs if you want. (But we want to know about it if you do,
>  and we want to be mentioned in the credits.) We may well allow you
>  to incorporate it into commercial software too, but we'll probably
>  demand some money for it, and we'll certainly demand to be given
>  credit. And in extreme cases (although I can't immediately think of
>  a reason we might actually want to do this) we may refuse to let
>you
>  do it at all.
>
>  NASM LICENCE AGREEMENT
>  ==
>
>  By "the Software" this licence refers to the complete contents of
>  the NASM archive, excluding this licence document itself, and
>  excluding the contents of the `test' directory. The Netwide
>  Disassembler, NDISASM, is specifically included under this licence.
>
>  I. The Software is freely redistributable; anyone may copy the
>  Software, or parts of the Software, and give away as many copies as
>  they like to anyone, as long as this licence document is kept with
>  the Software. Charging a fee for the Software is prohibited,
>  although a fee may be charged for the act of transferring a copy,
>  and you can offer warranty protection and charge a fee for that.
>
>  II. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other
>  freely redistributable software (by which we mean software that may
>  be obtained free of charge) without requiring permission from the
>  authors, as long as due credit is given to the authors of the
>  Software in the resulting work, as long as the authors are informed
>  of this action if possible, and as long as those parts of the
>  Software that are used remain under this licence.
>
>  III. Modified forms of the Software may be created and distributed
>  as long as the authors are informed of this action if possible, as
>  long as the resulting work remains under this licence, as long as
>  the modified form of the Software is distributed with documentation
>  which still gives credit to the original authors of the Software,
>  and as long as the modified form of the Software is distributed
>with
>  a clear statement that it is not the original form of the Software
>  in the form that it was distributed by the authors.
>
>  IV. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other
>  software which is not freely redistributable (i.e. software for
>  which a fee is charged), as long as permission is granted from the
>  authors of the Software. The authors reserve the right to grant
>this
>  permission only for a fee, which may at our option take the form of
>  royalty payments. The authors also reserve the right to refuse to
>  grant permission if they deem it necessary. For further information
>  about who exactly the authors are, see clause XI below.
>
>  V. The Software may be incorporated, in its original archive form,
>  into software collections or archives which are not freely
>  redistributable, as long as it is clearly stated that the Software
>  itself remains freely redistributable and remains under this
>licence
>  and no

Re: NASM Licence

[Frank Kotler]

Zak Greant wrote:

> This being the first message that I have seen since joining this list some
> days ago, I would guess that all of the OSI members are quite busy with
> other projects.
> However, if you repost your license, I would be happy to comment.  My
> uninformed opinions should be just the bait needed to attract better minds
> to the discussion. ;)

Hi Zak,

Here's an interesting "varient" of the Nasm licence. This is apparently
what gets packaged with the Debian distribution of Nasm. Named just
"copyright". I don't know what to think of it.

Best,
Frank

--
   Upstream sources of nasm were obtained from
.

   The original authors are Julian Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
Simon Tatham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

   nasm was packaged for Debian by Vincent Renardias
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.  The current Debian maintainer is Matej Vela
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

   nasm is distributed under the GNU General Public License.

 Terms and Conditions for the use of the Netwide Assembler
 =

 Can I have the gist without reading the legalese?
 -

 Basically, NASM is free. You can't charge for it. You can copy it
as
 much as you like. You can incorporate it, or bits of it, into other
 free programs if you want. (But we want to know about it if you do,
 and we want to be mentioned in the credits.) We may well allow you
 to incorporate it into commercial software too, but we'll probably
 demand some money for it, and we'll certainly demand to be given
 credit. And in extreme cases (although I can't immediately think of
 a reason we might actually want to do this) we may refuse to let
you
 do it at all.

 NASM LICENCE AGREEMENT
 ==

 By "the Software" this licence refers to the complete contents of
 the NASM archive, excluding this licence document itself, and
 excluding the contents of the `test' directory. The Netwide
 Disassembler, NDISASM, is specifically included under this licence.

 I. The Software is freely redistributable; anyone may copy the
 Software, or parts of the Software, and give away as many copies as
 they like to anyone, as long as this licence document is kept with
 the Software. Charging a fee for the Software is prohibited,
 although a fee may be charged for the act of transferring a copy,
 and you can offer warranty protection and charge a fee for that.

 II. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other
 freely redistributable software (by which we mean software that may
 be obtained free of charge) without requiring permission from the
 authors, as long as due credit is given to the authors of the
 Software in the resulting work, as long as the authors are informed
 of this action if possible, and as long as those parts of the
 Software that are used remain under this licence.

 III. Modified forms of the Software may be created and distributed
 as long as the authors are informed of this action if possible, as
 long as the resulting work remains under this licence, as long as
 the modified form of the Software is distributed with documentation
 which still gives credit to the original authors of the Software,
 and as long as the modified form of the Software is distributed
with
 a clear statement that it is not the original form of the Software
 in the form that it was distributed by the authors.

 IV. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other
 software which is not freely redistributable (i.e. software for
 which a fee is charged), as long as permission is granted from the
 authors of the Software. The authors reserve the right to grant
this
 permission only for a fee, which may at our option take the form of
 royalty payments. The authors also reserve the right to refuse to
 grant permission if they deem it necessary. For further information
 about who exactly the authors are, see clause XI below.

 V. The Software may be incorporated, in its original archive form,
 into software collections or archives which are not freely
 redistributable, as long as it is clearly stated that the Software
 itself remains freely redistributable and remains under this
licence
 and no other. Such collections are deemed not to fall under article
 IV of this licence.

 VI. Object files or programs generated by the Software as output do
 not fall under this licence at all, and may be placed under any
 licence the author wishes. The authors explicitly lay no claim to,
 and assert no rights over, any programs written by other people and
 assembled into object form by the Software.

 VII. You may not copy, modify or distribute the Softwar

Re: NASM Licence

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> Quite a bit ago I posted the NASM Licence to OSI for review. No one on this
> list has commented on it, and I have recieved no further input on whether it
> is even being considered for approval now.

I seem to recall a bit of discussion on it. Without going and looking
them up on the archive, it seems that the consensus was that it was
OSS, but incompatible with the GPL. The last point was problematic
since the license claimed to be GPL compatible.

 -- 
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org

Re: NASM Licence

[Zak Greant]

Dear Nelson,

This being the first message that I have seen since joining this list some
days ago, I would guess that all of the OSI members are quite busy with
other projects.
However, if you repost your license, I would be happy to comment.  My
uninformed opinions should be just the bait needed to attract better minds
to the discussion. ;)

 --zak

- Original Message -
From: "Nelson Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "License-Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 7:16 PM
Subject: NASM Licence


> Quite a bit ago I posted the NASM Licence to OSI for review. No one on
this
> list has commented on it, and I have recieved no further input on whether
it
> is even being considered for approval now.
>
> Do I need to re-submit or was the lack of approval considered
disapproval?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
> Nelson Rush
>
> " o/~ Oh give me a clone; of my own flesh and bone; with the Y
> +chromosome changed to an X; and when we're alone; since her mind is my
own;
> +she'll be thinking of nothing but sex o/~"
> - EFnet #c
>
>