On Wednesday March 28 2001 07:28 am, David Davies wrote:
> So back to one of the questions in my original e-mail
>
> "Is this a practice that is intended to be prohibited?"
> [under the OSD]
I would say that registration fees are intended to be prohibited.
> If so why isn't there a more specif
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 6:20 AM, David Johnson wrote
-> > To allow the user to improve the software for themselves
-> to suit there
-> > environments.
->
-> But you can do that without the software being Open Source.
-> You do not need
-> the approval of the OSI in order to make your so
On Wednesday March 28 2001 04:48 am, Robert Kolzan wrote:
> To allow the user to improve the software for themselves to suit there
> environments.
But you can do that without the software being Open Source. You do not need
the approval of the OSI in order to make your source code available. Th
To allow the user to improve the software for themselves to suit there
environments.
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2001 5:36 AM
To: David Davies; 'Eric Jacobs'; License-Discuss (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Subscription/Service Fees
On Wednesday March 28 2001 03:51 am, David Davies wrote:
> I can see no reason why a clause can not be added to the license that
> states;
> " x.1 If you continue to use this software or any derived work after a
> thirty (30) day evaluation period you are required to register it.
> x.2 Regist
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 7:36 AM, Eric Jacobs wrote :
-> > Violates #7: "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".
-> >
-> > http://www.opensource.or
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 7:25 AM, Karsten M. Self wrote:
-> > > > Netscape was able to actively sell into those
-> corporations in a very
-> > > > interesting manner. "Since you already have our
-> products and the
-> > > > license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us."
-> >
On Tuesday March 27 2001 09:09 am, David Davies wrote:
> Maybe I don't get some key part.
>
> I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it
> clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software you
> are required to pay $x to xyz inc.
There's one key ele
David Davies writes:
> Maybe I don't get some key part.
>
> I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it clearly
> stated in the license that if you continue to use the software you are
> required to pay $x to xyz inc.
>
> There is no way to stop user A giving it to user
"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it
> > clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software
> > you are required to pay $x to xyz inc.
> >
> Nope.
>
> Violates #7: "The rights attached to the progra
on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:38:34PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Netscape was able to actively sell into those corporations in a very
> > > interesting manner. "Since you already have our products and the
> > > license
"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Netscape was able to actively sell into those corporations in a very
> > interesting manner. "Since you already have our products and the
> > license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us."
>
> Support this statement with a citation
on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 06:09:03PM +0900, David Davies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 9:44 AM, David Johnson wrote
>
> >
> > On Tuesday March 27 2001 08:16 am, David Davies wrote:
> > > It appears that the Open Source definition would not specifically
> > > limit a lic
On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 9:44 AM, David Johnson wrote
->
-> On Tuesday March 27 2001 08:16 am, David Davies wrote:
-> > It appears that the Open Source definition would not
-> specifically limit a
-> > license from requiring users to pay a subscription fee or
-> month service fee
-> > for us
On Tuesday March 27 2001 08:16 am, David Davies wrote:
> It appears that the Open Source definition would not specifically limit a
> license from requiring users to pay a subscription fee or month service fee
> for using the software. Perhaps I am missing something?
You can charge your customers
15 matches
Mail list logo
