On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:02:59AM +, David Johnson wrote:
If the license forbids charging customers for any service that is theirs to
provide then it will have a very tough time being approped as either OSS or
FS. To translate your wishes another way, you want "to make it difficult
At 11:05 AM 11/2/2000 +, David Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday 01 November 2000 07:02 pm, Mark Hatch wrote:
The intention here sounds similar to the Open Motif Public License (sic)
and the QPL. The OMPL requires royalties for use on non-"open systems" and
the original QPL was open source
Am Don, 02 Nov 2000 schrieben Sie:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:02:59AM +, David Johnson wrote:
If the license forbids charging customers for any service that is theirs to
provide then it will have a very tough time being approped as either OSS or
FS. To translate your wishes
On Thursday 02 November 2000 03:23 pm, Mark Hatch wrote:
If I understand your comment about the new QPL correctly, it prohibits use
by closed source applications and proprietary use (I thought that there was
also some prohibition in QPL on systems that didn't support the X Window
System -
On selling software, From section 1 of the GNU GPL:
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code
as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty;
on Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 07:18:28PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Your message has engaged my curiosity. Why are discussions about open
source/FSF licenses being held in secret? It seems to me that we all
should be informed of not only the status of these
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Bryan George wrote:
It seems that, since shared library mechanisms in commercial embedded
systems are quite rare, this provision is a license trap against the
field of commercial embedded systems development, which if so would be a
clear violation of OSD clause 6.
You
7 matches
Mail list logo
