on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 08:22:13AM +, Charlie Stross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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
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
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 discussi
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; kee
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 Thursday 02 November 2000 08:22 am, Charlie Stross wrote:
>
> ... I don't care
> about Redhat's distribution because they're not running the software
> on a pay-per-use basis on behalf of the customer -- they're selling media
> and support.
Isn't that what a lot of support is? Pay per use/inci
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 wishe
excuse me for coming into this discussion late.
Russ mentioned on Slashdot that OSI might decide to change OSD section 7
because it seems to disallow the PHP/Zend license combination. The rationale
for section 7 on the OSI web site seems to support this. However, this was
not my rationale for tha
Yes, you are reading it wrong. If you don't have shared libraries, you have
to distribute the .o files for the proprietary part. That way, when the free
part is fixed or changed, the user can re-link the improved free part to the
existing proprietary part.
Thanks
Bruce
At the risk of starting another longish thread, I have to ask a question
that arose in my mind from yesterday's LGPL discussion: Is the LGPL
truly OSD-compliant?
The OSD states that a compliant license must not restrict anyone from
making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. At t
David Johnson wrote:
>
> So go ahead and write a license that covers all the points of the LGPL, but
> don't follow it's structure or wording. I would say that the odds of RMS
> approving it are pretty good as long as it complies with his Free Software
> definition. He might counsel you to use th
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 s
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
