G'day all.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:34:49AM +, SamBC wrote:
> The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of
> people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against
> those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license
> fee.
That _
G'day all.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:48:44PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote:
> Please clarify or expand on that statement.
The issue under discussion was what incentive would hackers have for
contributing to a product released under a Source Included Software
scheme that was not Open Source such
Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote:
>
> > I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would
> > be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see
> > any incentive for open
G'day all.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote:
> I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would
> be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see
> any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to
Hi all,
I confused on at least one point (probably more ;-) ) of the GPL and would
like some clarification. I'm sure that this is not a new issue, but didn't
see it covered in the FAQ at opensource.org... But I do admit that I was
too lazy to search the archives...
Suppose that there are thre
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
>Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:26:04 -0800 (PST)
>
>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
> > IANAL but I think the general reaction would be that
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Citates from the GPL:
> Well, the GPL says this:
>
> "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the
> Program is not restricted, and the output from the
>> IANAL but I think the general reaction would be that the
>> graphics are part of the overall work and said game company
>> would then be obliged to also give away the graphics,
>> which you would then have access to.
>
>Doom and Quake have been released as GPL. Graphics and data files have not
Tom Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
[...]
> > 1. Understand the standard licensing models
> > ---
>
><...>
>
> > The Artistic License is notable for its use with the Perl programming
> > language, however, it's a somewhat eclect
on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 02:58:21PM -0500, Ralf Schwoebel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> we think that the discussion about IPL reached a point where the board
> will tell us, what we could do.
>
> Until then we have to continue to work and I kindly ask for the
> permission of everybody w
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
> IANAL but I think the general reaction would be that the
> graphics are part of the overall work and said game company
> would then be obliged to also give away the graphics,
> which you would then have access to.
Doom and Quake have been released as GPL.
"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
> What happens to a future user's rights if intradat is out of
> business (i.e. no way to execute a license?)
Or, worse, intradat gets bought up and the new owners try to kill off
('unofficial' versions of) the software by increasing the license fees
to, say, EUR
"Carter Bullard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Gentle people,
>I'm not a laywer so if I'm missing something, please fill in.
IANAL as well.
> > From: Gregor Hoffleit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > Well, the GPL says this:
> >
> > "Activities other than copying, distribution and
> > modif
on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:43:58AM +1100, Andrew J Bromage
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> Karsten, you've done an excellent job with this. There is one point
> that I'd like to make which might be worth adding, as it's a common
> misconception.
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 02:11:24
Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I would like some advice on what to do in my situation. I am developing
>artificial intelligence modules for computer games, and model games to
>demonstrate and test them. I would like to do that in an open source
>environment, and would like my code to be
On 16 Jan 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question.
> > May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of
> > license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify
> If you would choose for example to develop upgrades for IPLed software
> and market it under whatever business model, you are free to do so. All
> that IPL requires is, that the company running the software sticks to
> IPL and has eventually had a look at our price list. You are able to
> introd
I don't dispute that the incentive to create is
more important than the freedom to copy, but
incentive to create is not the goal of the OSD.
Can someone from intradat explain why you want
OSI approval? Why do you care?
- You explained the rationale for your license.
- You had a lawyer revi
From: "Henningsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is there any open source certified license that meets these criteria?
No, because a requirement to pay a fee is a restriction against free
redistribution of the software.
This issue is addressed directly by the OSD FAQ.
> And a more philosophical questi
Manfred Schmid writes:
> To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question.
> May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of
> license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as
> OSI-compliant Open Source?
My guess is yes because of the op
Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open
> source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? I think it
> is perverse to require me to offer my work as a donation to Microsoft and
> other game publishers just s
Title: RE: IPL as a burden
Gentle people,
I'm not a laywer so if I'm missing something, please fill in.
> From: Gregor Hoffleit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Well, the GPL says this:
>
> "Activities other than copying, distribution and
> modification are not
> covered by this
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote:
> I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS
> would be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I
> don't see any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to such a
> pro
Gregor,
I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would
be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see
any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to such a program. If
a company went out of business or ceased to produce the
Hi *,
we think that the discussion about IPL reached a point where the
board will tell us, what we could do.
Until then we have to continue to work and I kindly ask for the
permission of everybody who posted to "license-discuss" on that
matter, that we put a prominent link to these mails on our
The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of
people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against
those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license
fee.
SamBC
- Original Message -
From: "Manfred Schmid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
Mark Koek wrote:
> Source", that means the OSD is seriously flawed.
Hi Mark,
I understand your opinion, which was mine for a long time, too,
but still: OPEN DOES NOT MEAN FREE.
> And, BTW, the GPL does *not* leave the door open for license fees. It
> states that you may ask money for *distrib
Ralf Schwoebel wrote:
> After the discussion yesterday, and we might work a bit on our
> license and resubmit it. But the basic idea will stay:
Then I hope your submission will fail - I agree with other posters that
if the OSD does not preclude calling the things you are planning "Open
Source",
Hi there,
(This is a reaction to both David Johnson and Chris Sloan.)
CS> If someone gives you some clothes, they usually do not expect that you
CS> would not wear them to work. Similarly, if they give you a hammer or
CS> other tool they do not usually expect you to refrain from making money
CS
On Monday 15 January 2001 11:53 pm, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> > Well, yeah! One big implication of using the AFPL instead of the
> > GPL is "why
> > should I contribute to your code when I am not allowed to profit
> > off of it?"
> >
> > --
> > David Johnson
>
> You're still _using_ it. Whether you
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But the clarification that is likely to happen will not
> > be to your liking.
>
> If the whole construct is clear and consistent, we all know where we
> stand. I would prefer that to the current situation.
The current situation is that we all know
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:55:02PM +0100, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
[...]
> It reminds of something I did in my childhood (I must have been 12 years old
> or so). Somebody gave me a collection of comics that he knew I liked. I read
> most but when I got tired of them I try to sell them in a yard sale
G'day all.
Karsten, you've done an excellent job with this. There is one point
that I'd like to make which might be worth adding, as it's a common
misconception.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 02:11:24AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Artistic License is notable for its use with the Perl progr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> A work in progress for some time, but somewhat prompted by the IPL
> discussion yesterday, I thought I'd cast this out to the wolves.
Thanks for the meat.
> Intent is to provide a reference addressing more strategic than legal
> considerations for those contemplatin
> But the clarification that is likely to happen will not
> be to your liking.
If the whole construct is clear and consistent, we all know where we
stand. I would prefer that to the current situation.
> >We are not restricting competition. Opening the source will increase
> >competition for us a
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>clause O:
>
>"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
>covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
>
> > The GPL does cover running the software. In clause 0 I
> > see, "The act of running the Program is not restr
on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:54:22PM +0100, Manfred Schmid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter of
> running a GPLed program.
It does. Explicitly, in section 0:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
cov
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > If I want to run your program on several different computers, then
> > > > removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me.
> > > > With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement
> > > > is. I do.
> > >
> At this point I do not not know if we have a language problem, or if
> you are being deliberately obtuse.
>
We probably have a language problem (I am native German)
> License fees are incompatible with the OSD.
>
> Fees required for execution of the program are incompatible with the
> OSD.
>
clause O:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
> The GPL does cover running the software. In clause 0 I
> see, "The act of running the Program is not restricted..."
>
As a lawyer I would argue that it shoul
begin Manfred Schmid quotation:
> Still I do not see IPL being incompliant with the OSD. [...]
> We do not feel that the license is an obstacle.
Then your first problem is a failure of realism.
Mr. Schmid, you've spent considerable amounts of the list readership's
time talking about your com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> I believe OSD section 7 may cover that:
>
> 7. Distribution of License.
>
> The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
> program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
> additional license by those parties.
>
> =2E..
I would like some advice on what to do in my situation. I am developing
artificial intelligence modules for computer games, and model games to
demonstrate and test them. I would like to do that in an open source
environment, and would like my code to be used widely in other open source
games. Howe
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning
> a GPLed program.
As others have noted, this is not the case: the GPL does require
permission to run the program.
> From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the
> OSD
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:54:22PM +0100, Manfred Schmid wrote:
> It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning
> a GPLed program. From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the
> OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. From a non-legal standpoint I
> would argue t
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about using an open
> > source license, and then claiming license fees on top of that. Now I
> > understand that you were just continuing your claim that requiring
> > license fees was compatible with
46 matches
Mail list logo
