On 7/31/07, C Y wrote:
> --- Bill Page wrote:
> ...
> >
> > I dont know anything about Intellectual property laws in the US but
> > isnt "Axiom" too common a word to qualify as a trademark?
>
> The fact that NAG DID have it registered as a trademark when it was a
> commercial product would seem to
On 31 Jul 2007 22:24:49 -0400, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> Camm Maguire writes:
> ...
> > 2) The only rationale for a non-commercial use clause that I can see
> >is to keep open the possibility of a controlled separate licensing
> >to particular entites for commercial use.
The intention of NAG
Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greetings! AFAICT:
>
> 1) You can build axiom atop a stripped down version of GCL under an
>LGPL license, removing the conflict. It could still never get into
>Debian.
>
> 2) The only rationale for a non-commercial use clause that I can see
>
Greetings! AFAICT:
1) You can build axiom atop a stripped down version of GCL under an
LGPL license, removing the conflict. It could still never get into
Debian.
2) The only rationale for a non-commercial use clause that I can see
is to keep open the possibility of a controlled separat
"didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If not, I say we forget about Aldor (and maybe even build
> > something better). It seems to me that one year from now, we will
> > still be talking about this and not much progress will have been
> > made.
FYI, this is already being seriously pu
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 31 juil. 2007 18:00
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC
To: didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 7/31/07, didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> How much of Axiom is written using A
On 7/31/07, C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > The problem as I see it is lack of compatibility with GPL. According to
> > Stephen this is deliiberate on the part of NAG. Apparently they
> > object to the "viral" natue of GPL.
>
> Erm. That's very
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/31/07, C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Fair enough if we get into the nitty gritty, but one question here
> > - is there anyone who is interested in using Aldor given this
> > non-commercial clause?
> Certainly there are since there are some people using Aldor now and
> none of these would qualify as commercial as fas as I know.
>
> Can you suggest a credible commercial use? Do you know of any
> commercial use of Axiom? I dont think this is really the issue. The
> problem as I see it is lack o
On 7/31/07, C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Fair enough if we get into the nitty gritty, but one question here - is
> there anyone who is interested in using Aldor given this non-commercial
> clause?
>
Certainly there are since there are some people us
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.aldor.org/AldorPublicLicense2_0.html
>
> is a modified BSD-style license which contains a "for non-commerical
> use only clause" making it incompatible with GPL. This potentially
> has an impact on the possibility of using and distributing Ald
http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/AxiomPresentAndFuture
took place on Monday July 30 as planned. There was however very little
discussion about Axiom. :-( In attendance where Barry Trager, Steven
Watt, Emil Volcheck, Gaby Dos Reis, Bill Page plus a few other people
from the ISSAC conference that I d
12 matches
Mail list logo
