On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, flash gordon wrote:
> I would suggest standard admittedly simplistic definitions:
>
> 1] 'Full Use Lifetime License' = [FULL] 'unfettered use' [i.e. GPL]
> 2] 'Limited Use Software Enjoyment Rights License' = [LUSER License :)]
> typical restricted commercial type copyright
At 08:00 PM 9/29/00 -0700, David Johnson wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, flash gordon wrote:
>
> > GPL does not prohibit commercialization, it protects it.
> >
> > Personally I think that is a major flaw in the GNU/GPL concept of
> > 'freeware' - I think the term 'freeware' should be reserved for sof
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, flash gordon wrote:
> GPL does not prohibit commercialization, it protects it.
>
> Personally I think that is a major flaw in the GNU/GPL concept of
> 'freeware' - I think the term 'freeware' should be reserved for software
> that is both free of restrictions on modificati
At 10:09 AM 9/29/00 +0200, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>OK..
>
>So we (my company) have decided to make our VR-toolkit open source! But we
>haven't decided which license to use for it. GPL seems the obvious choice,
>but we want to restrict the freedom somehow (at least in the beginning, just
>so we can
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> OK..
>
> So we (my company) have decided to make our VR-toolkit open source! But we
> haven't decided which license to use for it. GPL seems the obvious choice,
> but we want to restrict the freedom somehow (at least in the beginning, just
> so we can
begin SamBC quotation:
> Only one I saw was GNU FDL which was even less simple, and had some
> clauses I disliked.
It strikes me that writings in electronic format, that you want to be
distributable that way, fall roughly into two categories: ones that
express your personal views and that you t
- Original Message -
From: "SamBC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Only one I saw was GNU FDL which was even less simple, and had some
clauses
> I disliked.
>
> sLODL was as simple as I could make it while making it legally watertight
> (AFAIK, as IANAL). I did research, and the subsectioning is t
- Original Message -
From: "Dave J Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > http://www.simplelinux.org/legal/sLODL.html
> >
> > Opinions on OS-ness and legality, and general good/badness, pls
> >
> [DJW:] The HTML is invalid, although it makes an
> e
Only one I saw was GNU FDL which was even less simple, and had some clauses
I disliked.
sLODL was as simple as I could make it while making it legally watertight
(AFAIK, as IANAL). I did research, and the subsectioning is to make it
easier, and definitions are a legal requirement in many jusirsdi
> From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> http://www.simplelinux.org/legal/sLODL.html
>
> Opinions on OS-ness and legality, and general good/badness, pls
>
[DJW:] The HTML is invalid, although it makes an
exceptionally good attempt to use elements for their
intended pu
> From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial
> use
> of our toolkit?
>
[DJW:] No. You can ask a fee for the supply of the
recorded media and for support, but you cannot
charge for the licence itself. You can even
It is nice to see someone ask questions before they take a license and
assume it does something it does not, and mis-use it.
> Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial use
> of our toolkit?
That is a question that can be interpreted in a few different ways
which c
Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial use
> of our toolkit?
You can ask what you want. :-)
But because the GPL explicitly permits free redistribution, anyone could
do the same, so it would be necessary to add value in return for the
fe
Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial use
of our toolkit?
L.
> From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> so we can ge more organised). We definately want to prohibit commercial
> use
> (I guess GPL covers this), but we also want to be notified of any changes
>
The GPL encourages commercial use (I may be wrong, but
I have a feeling that the OSI ru
OK..
So we (my company) have decided to make our VR-toolkit open source! But we
haven't decided which license to use for it. GPL seems the obvious choice,
but we want to restrict the freedom somehow (at least in the beginning, just
so we can ge more organised). We definately want to prohibit comm
16 matches
Mail list logo
