On Sunday 23 September 2007 15:43:12 Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 05:10:53PM +, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
My company develops software under a commercial open source (see
links for details) and I want to know if my license is close enough to
open source (see links for why it
On Sunday 23 September 2007 18:41:43 Aryeh Friedman wrote:
On 9/24/07, Michael Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
many people feel much differently, why not just a pure proprietary
license then, rather than proliferating Yet Another Silly License which
is not tempered by sound legal analysis.
I never claimed to be original... if you want to see the
innovator/largest code base in the community look at jahia.com... the
only claim I made was I wanted to have my stuff included in the ports
collection and wanted to know if the legal aspects of my business
model where sufficient... one of
On Monday 24 September 2007 07:54:25 Aryeh Friedman wrote:
I never claimed to be original... if you want to see the
innovator/largest code base in the community look at jahia.com... the
only claim I made was I wanted to have my stuff included in the ports
collection and wanted to know if the
Aryeh Friedman wrote:
[...] the
only claim I made was I wanted to have my stuff included in the ports
collection and wanted to know if the legal aspects of my business
model where sufficient... one of the first replies answered that...
[...]
There are other programs in the ports with much
My company develops software under a commercial open source (see
links for details) and I want to know if my license is close enough to
open source (see links for why it is not 100% OSD compliant [it is 95%
compliant]). Specifically does the business model as outlined in my
blog (the third
If you read the 1st blog entry and the FAQ for the certifying agency
you will see why dual licenses are:
1. For the most part impossible to prevent the free rider issue
2. Is inherently unfair to contributors
3. Without the fee for execution (instead of just commercial use) it
is very hard to
On 9/24/07, Michael Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
many people feel much differently, why not just a pure proprietary license
then, rather than proliferating Yet Another Silly License which is not
tempered by sound legal analysis.
Not to be insulting but I don't think you read my 1st blog
you more then welcome to join in on the conversation... right now due
to the dns issue sited in the original posting we are doing it via a
manual mailing list (cc everyone else) [I think that should be
partially fixed by tomorrow afternoon] given that if you send any
mail to the SIW community
