Rick!
Now you are very polemic:
forebear from referring to software under that licence as "open source",
or it will have a serious public-relations problem.
For it is _very_ obvious that, in fact, you do not intend to produce
open-source software, and never did. Good luck to you.
The term O
begin Angelo Schneider quotation:
> The term O-P-E-N S-O-U-R-C-E was long n use before the OSI made a
> public, and now widly accepted definition of it.
In the spy-community sense ("open sources"), yes, but not in the
software sense. (You _may_ be able to dredge up a handfull of isolated
citat
rick:
i understand and respect your perspective, but why do your posts always
sound like mafia threats?
-dan
Manfred Schmid wrote:
>
Hi all!
[...]
>
> "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
> Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
> freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this
> service if you wish), that you re
Angelo Schneider wrote:
> Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL.
> The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme
> from customer B.
Sure you can. The FSF charges for the GNU CDs it distributes
(historically a major income source for them), but
Enough already, people.
We're about one or two posts away from this devolving in something really
ugly.
Look, I take this licensing stuff as seriously as anyone here, but even I
know that we're all staring it so intently and trying so hard to convince
each other that we're losing our perspective
John Cowan wrote:
> Angelo Schneider wrote:
>
> > Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL.
> > The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme
> > from customer B.
>
> Sure you can. The FSF charges for the GNU CDs it distributes
> (historically a
Angelo Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The term O-P-E-N S-O-U-R-C-E was long n use before the OSI made a
> public, and now widly accepted definition of it.
No, it wasn't.
That was the whole point behind choosing the term ``open source.'' It
didn't carry any existing freight. See, e.g.
begin Dan Hensgen quotation:
> i understand and respect your perspective, but why do your posts always
> sound like mafia threats?
Here at linuxmafia.com, we make people offers they can afford -- and
throw in the source code for free.
As we say in California, thanks for sharing.
But seriously,
David Johnson wrote:
>
> On Monday 22 January 2001 09:35 am, Bryan George wrote:
>
> > > Okay, I'm writing it down: "Audience = inflexible Unix bigots =>
> > document = brain dead ASCII text". Got it, thanks!
>
> Sigh...
>
> I don't have MS Office, and I am not about to pay for it. This has n
Bryan George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>David Johnson wrote:
> >
> > On Monday 22 January 2001 09:35 am, Bryan George wrote:
> >
> > > > Okay, I'm writing it down: "Audience = inflexible Unix bigots =>
> > > document = brain dead ASCII text". Got it, thanks!
> >
> > Sigh...
> >
> > I don't hav
What about dual-licensing? Can a company say, "this tool is free and
distributed under the GPL, but only for creating free software; if you want
to sell your software you have to pay for a license and get it under our
normal close-source license"? Or would that violate the GPL and/or OSI
guideli
on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:36:11PM -0500, Lou Grinzo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What about dual-licensing? Can a company say, "this tool is free and
> distributed under the GPL, but only for creating free software; if you want
> to sell your software you have to pay for a license and get it und
Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Why not pick up TeX? The output looks about as good as
> you will get, it can be presented as PDF, the source is
> human-readable and small, and bit-rot is zero.
>
> Oh, and both software for reading and creating is free.
Ah, TeX - that takes me back - wy back.
> OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_.
Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is
distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be
applied to licenses, because licenses aren't "goods" distributed in
commerce.
/Larry Rose
begin Bryan George quotation:
> I'm just busting your chops a little, really... :) You don't have to
> convince me of the need for a low-cost, accessible, open way to pass
> docs around - I just got a little tweaked with the "Real men use ASCII"
> crud. %b
There _was_ a time (up to circa 1988)
on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:15:52AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_.
>
> Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is
> distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cann
Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In any event, I've been tempted to start an information-clearinghouse
> site listing the leading formats for various types of data files
See http://www.wotsit.org/
It's probably not everything you want, but it's a start at what you
seem to describing.
Ia
> From: Bryan George [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I was going to suggest that - presumably anyone with pockets for Office
> can pick up a copy of Acrobat as well, and the reader's free and
> multi-platform.
>
[DJW:] There are royalty free and "open source" tools for
creating and viewing PDF, fr
begin Ben Tilly quotation:
[TeX:]
> OK, so it is not open source. And before anyone points me at standard
> GPLed packages for TeX, allow me to point out that Knuth's software is
> under a license that does not permit modifications. IANAL, but AFAICS
> if you incorporate work which you are not
"Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_.
>
>Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is
>distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be
>applied to licenses, because licens
Lou Grinzo wrote:
> What about dual-licensing? Can a company say, "this tool is free and
> distributed under the GPL, but only for creating free software; if you want
> to sell your software you have to pay for a license and get it under our
> normal close-source license"? Or would that violate
Hi everyone,
I'm a software developer at IBM, working on a project that we expect to
release as Open Source/Free Software. I voted for the GPL, but the higher
ups here at IBM have decided it should be released under a new
license called the "Common Public License". This license is basically th
Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LaTex is "based on" Knuth's work in the sense that it implements the TeX
> design, but my understanding is that it is not a derivative work in a
> copyright sense, but rather was written separately by Leslie Lamport,
> and is now maintained by the LaTeX3 Pr
Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>begin Ben Tilly quotation:
>
>[TeX:]
>
> > OK, so it is not open source. And before anyone points me at standard
> > GPLed packages for TeX, allow me to point out that Knuth's software is
> > under a license that does not permit modifications. IANAL, but A
All *excellent* suggestions.
Brian
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Jorg Janke wrote:
> Here some ideas and suggestions:
[...snipped for brevity...]
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It boils down to saying that you are free to use this
> software, with or without modificaiton, in any software
> for which source is available. You may not remove
> their copyright notice. Said notice includes contact
> information in case you want to negotiat
OSI Certified Open Source Software is software that is distributed under an
approved open source license. So software that is "public domain" (to use
your term) is not certifiable. This is not intended as a value judgment,
merely as a description of what our certification mark is used for. /Lar
begin Ben Tilly quotation:
> See http://www.latex-project.org/guides/ltx3info/node2.html
> for confirmation. See also
> http://www.latex-project.org/guides/ltx3info/node4.html for
> evidence that there is at present no plan to remove the
> dependency upon TeX.
Thanks for the clarification. LaT
"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote:
>
> I want to discourage license-discuss participants from answering questions
> like this one.
:
> But non-lawyers have to avoid giving legal advice
Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way. In a word, BS.
People should be cautious of following legal advi
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > I want to discourage license-discuss participants from answering
> > questions like this one.
> :
> > But non-lawyers have to avoid giving legal advice
>
> Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way. In a word, BS.
I agree. If "no
31 matches
Mail list logo
