I agree with most of the points made on this discussion. The more licenses
that exist, the more splintered the open source community will become. You
can't use source code licensed with License X with source code licensed with
License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't think it is too far
Michael Stutz wrote:
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand
I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code
that has no license and is in the public domain.
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL.
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL.
Does the BSD licence give a user the right to
begin Ian Grigg quotation:
Does the BSD licence give a user the right to distribute covered
code under the GPL? That is what it needs to permit, if the GPL
is to be satisfied, AFAIK. And neither the new nor old permit
you to do that, just use it according to the restrictions.
It's
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
same, or
snip
The only other reason I can think of to get OSI approval for your
license is for advertising purposes. In that case, I guess you'll
just have to wait until somebody from the OSI speaks up. I'm no
expert, but, personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble. So you
can't put ``open
Does the BSD licence give a user the right to distribute covered
code under the GPL?...
It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using
chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use".
OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so
I can take any part of
Rob Edgeworth writes:
snip
The only other reason I can think of to get OSI approval for your
license is for advertising purposes. In that case, I guess you'll
just have to wait until somebody from the OSI speaks up. I'm no
expert, but, personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ian Grigg wrote:
It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using
chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use".
OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so
I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code
and
OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so
I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code
and distrubute it as BSD.
No, this is not possible. While programs distributed under the GPL may use
BSD (minux advertising clause) code the reverse does not apply.
begin Ian Grigg quotation:
OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so I can
take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code and
distrubute it as BSD.
No, because the GPL explicitly covers derived works.
--
CrackMonkey.Org - Non-sequitur arguments and
Hello all;
Martin Konold wrote:
[..]
The only acceptable license for RMS is finally the GPL. This means that
according to RMS in the end everything shall be licensed under the GPL
without exceptions.
I look on this as a bit of a strawman. It's
easy to be confused by Richard's subtle
Hello all;
Michael Stutz wrote:
Richard Brice wrote:
You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code
licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't
think it is too far off the mark).
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another?
COMMENTS APPRECIATED...ON MY ARTICLE SOON TO BE PUBLISHED..
When Efforts to Conceal May Actually Reveal:Whether First Amendment
Protection of Encryption Source Code and the OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT Support
Re-drawing the Constitutional Line Between the First Amendment and Copyright
for Authors of
G'day all.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Michael Stutz wrote:
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand
I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code
that has no license and is in the public domain.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:35:57PM -0500,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL.
To be
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Nick Moffitt wrote:
It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using
chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use".
But the reverse is not? Okay, my hackles are raised now... Using a chunk of
GPLd code in my BSD application would ensure mailbombings
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
soapbox
Contrary to popular belief, "free speech" (as RMS describes it) is not
the same as "free time". "Free time" has no strings attached, whereas
"free speech" has implied responsibilities. Unfortunately, the FSF
have never AFAIK noted that
"Brice, Richard" wrote:
I agree with most of the points made on this discussion. The more licenses
that exist, the more splintered the open source community will become. You
can't use source code licensed with License X with source code licensed with
License Z (ok, that's a generalization
David Johnson wrote:
And you're also forgetting the "idiot filter" quality of this list. Someone
submits a license. Everyone proceeds to call in the question the submitter's
ancestry or proclivities. The submitters leaves in disgust. Those that do
manage to stick around after the first two
Raymond Luk wrote:
I have about 50 programmers here ready to volunteer some time if OSI needs some
sort of application/database to help them out. Of course, we'd use only OSI
compliant tools :)
I don't think software is the bottleneck here. Maybe if your 50
developers all read this list and
David Johnson wrote:
You cannot argue that the GPL forbids Fair Use because of its derivation
clauses. If you do so, you are arguing against yourself, since the GPL is not a
contract. A much better tack would be to define what Fair Use is in relation to
source code.
Fair use for source code
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alex Nicolaou wrote:
My conclusion: skip the certification. Write your code. If people want
it, they'll read your license after they're using it and send you
complaints. Spend the time on the important part ... the software.
We in the Eiffel community have struck a
I want to clear up something that seems to be clouding this discussion.
Here is my personal assessment: (IANAL, I just sound like one.)
1. Fair use is an application of a copyrighted work that does not require
any permission or license to perform. In the past, the U.S. Copyright Act
has given
I think I understand how this works. Let me check it with your thinking:
A. The Angels group produces a software work, X, distributing it under an
OSD-consistent copyright license that permits derivative works and does not
require that they be distributed under the same license or even be
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alex Nicolaou wrote:
In general, any "meta-use" of a portion of the source code should be
acceptable, that is, any re-use of a portion of the code whose purpose
is to provide commentary or insight into the original and not replace
the use or function of the original.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
2.To focus on discussion of derivative works. Making derivative works is a
right reserved to the original copyright holder, and so a license is indeed
required to make one. And this is all provided for under copyright law. In
particular,
Dual licensing makes perfect sense, it all depends on why you are licensing
your software.
I believe there's a discussion somewhere online as to the "whys and
wherefores" that Larry Wall chose to license Perl (for example) under
multiple licenses. (Where to find it is left as an exercise to
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Michael Stutz wrote:
Richard Brice wrote:
You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code
licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't
think it is too far off the mark).
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with
Richard Brice wrote:
You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code
licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't
think it is too far off the mark).
Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand
I can think of just two
31 matches
Mail list logo
