Hello,
Just to clarify. The APSL 1.2 actually makes an *exception* for Private
Use (as well as internal RD); i.e. Private Use is not considered a
"Deployment" and therefore such use is exempt from the requirements
attached to Covered Code that is Deployed.
From the APSL 1.2 definitions:
Hello,
I still haven't heard anything a few months after submitting the following
license to the approval list, so I thought I'd try to get a head start and
post to the discussion list to see if anyone had feedback.
The SpeechWorks Public License v1.1 can be found at
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, David Johnson wrote:
On Thursday April 05 2001 04:02 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
Is there a pressing need or interest for private use to be disclosed?
Apple wants it in there, and there's nothing in the Open Source
Definition that allows us to require them to remove
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, David Johnson wrote:
I would definitely try to get Stallman's approval. So far, all Open Source
licenses are also Free Software licenses(*). It would be sad if the APSL was
the one to fall through the crack between the definitions.
[...]
(*) The Artistic License might
Derek Seabury wrote:
I still haven't heard anything a few months after submitting the following
license to the approval list, so I thought I'd try to get a head start and
post to the discussion list to see if anyone had feedback.
OSI actions depend on overworked volunteers, so slowness
We are trying to encourage companies who deploy APSL software to share
their modifications with the broader community. Typically, companies
will adapt software to meet the broader needs of people across their
organization. An example is the use of our Streaming Server software,
where
on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:27:38PM +0200, Toon Knapen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
David Johnson wrote:
I would definitely try to get Stallman's approval. So far, all Open Source
licenses are also Free Software licenses(*). It would be sad if the APSL was
the one to fall through the crack
begin phil hunt quotation:
Two question that spring to mind:
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would they want to not disclose it?
Assuming that this question was not *purely* rhetorical:
There are many people who are NOT on the Internet OR in
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Nick Moffitt wrote:
begin phil hunt quotation:
Two question that spring to mind:
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would they want to not disclose it?
Assuming that this question was not *purely* rhetorical:
Not at all.
I wrote:
Two question that spring to mind:
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would they want to not disclose it?
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would Apple mind them not disclosing it?
On Thu, 5 Apr
On Thursday April 05 2001 05:20 pm, Ron Dumont wrote:
Hello,
Just to clarify. The APSL 1.2 actually makes an *exception* for Private
Use (as well as internal RD); i.e. Private Use is not considered a
"Deployment" and therefore such use is exempt from the requirements
attached to Covered
On Thursday April 05 2001 12:03 pm, phil hunt wrote:
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would they want to not disclose it?
Two reasons spring to mind. 1) the modifications may contain proprietary
information, trade secrets, and internal matters that are
12 matches
Mail list logo
