On Wednesday 20 June 2001 09:58 pm, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> The Mozilla Public License allows one to charge for executable versions of
> products built using MPL code. The source version of MPL code must
> always be available free of charge under the MPL. But one is allowed
> take that source cod
The Mozilla Public License allows one to charge for executable versions of
products built using MPL code. The source version of MPL code must always
be available free of charge under the MPL. But one is allowed take that
source code, compile it and sell the executables. this may be hard since
begin Greg Herlein quotation:
> Brian indicated that the FSF did not copyright these templates so we
> are free to derive from them.
Any chance I can get an electronic copy, so I can put them up for public
access?
I recall, by the way, that Tripwire, Inc. is one of the other
organisations requi
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 08:59 am, Stephane Routelous wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm a newbie in License considerations.
>
> Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is
> used in a commercial application ?
> Thanks,
No there isn't. But it may be possible to use an Open So
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 08:18 am, Greg Herlein wrote:
> I thought these were considered unenforcable. Can you really
> give up rights from a click? I know that contracts can legally
> give up rights (even some promised uner the Constitution) but can
> a click be a binding contractual agreemen
>> . If you submit code to a
>> project, you don't do it in expectation of future profits directly from the
>> code. Likely unworkable and unenforcable.
Currently that is the rule no doubt, but I think we could get open source
code written faster and probably better if people could
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does anyone recommend any lawyers in the Northeast area that
> specialize or
> are aware of open source issues?
Hi there,
we initiated a discussion with the guys from Williams Mullen
Clark and Dubbins in DC. They have written a bazillion software
licenses, but our "co
Does anyone recommend any lawyers in the Northeast area that specialize or
are aware of open source issues?
Brian Youmans, the FSF clerk handling assignements, was kind
enough to send me all the templates. Other kind folks on the
list did as well. Thanks to all of them.
Brian indicated that the FSF did not copyright these templates so
we are free to derive from them.
With Rick's link to the FSF page
begin John Cowan quotation:
> The U.S. Copyright Act, at least (section 106), speaks of "prepar[ing]
> derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" as one of the
> exclusive rights of authors. So in theory at least you are not
> allowed even to translate your copy of _Foundation and Empire
Rick Moen wrote:
> Strictly speaking, you're not barred from _making_ works with
> incompatible licences; the derivative work would just not be lawfully
> _distributable_, as so doing would violate the licensing terms of the
> third-party borrowed work.
The U.S. Copyright Act, at least (secti
> The problem (and the mechanics of dealing with copyright assignment) are
> addressed, in some detail, in FSF's "Information for Maintainers of GNU
> Software", http://www.fsf.org/prep/maintain_toc.html . 'Hope that helps!
This is indeed quite useful.
Sort of becoming a maintainer for a GNU
begin Greg Herlein quotation:
> Yes, this is what I am leaning towards. From a practical
> perspective, what is required to legally get the contributors to
> assign copyright to me? How are other people/orgs doing this,
> and are those methods going to hold up legally?
The problem (and the mec
> Most of the effect, though can be gotten by licensing library L
> under the GPL and then saying "Licenses for using this library in
> non-GPL products are available from the author."
> Of course, you must make sure that any contributors to L either assign
> copyright to you (simplest), or else a
Greg Herlein wrote:
> The goal, as I have defined it for my project, is that if you
> want to use my libraries in your project and your project is open
> source code - ie, the code is available for inspection and
> derivation, and no commercial fees are charged for derivative
> works - then I wa
begin John Cowan quotation:
> Suppose there are three original works: A under the GPL, B under the
> MIT, C under the MPL. You may create a derivative work A+B and license
> it under the GPL. You may not license A+B under the MIT, because
> you are not allowed to create derivatives of A that a
> From: Stephane Routelous [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is
> used in a commercial application ?
[DJW:]
Allow: yes. Require: I believe not.
In addition, you may insist on payment before supplying the
software, but you canno
> From: Greg Herlein [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> The goal, as I have defined it for my project, is that if you
> want to use my libraries in your project and your project is open
> source code - ie, the code is available for inspection and
> derivation, and no commercial fees are charged for der
Hello,
I'm a newbie in License considerations.
Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is
used in a commercial application ?
Thanks,
Stephane
> > you are free, my code is free; if you are commercial, my code is
> > commercial?"
> [DJW:] I believe that this would violate the definition
> of "open source" used on this mailing list, but the Kermit
> licence might be an example of such a (non-open source)
> licence.
> One project I was involved with was considering working some sort of one-time
> "click to agree to the provisions of the license" into the CVS or patch manager.
I thought these were considered unenforcable. Can you really
give up rights from a click? I know that contracts can legally
give up
Greg Herlein wrote:
> However, I'm very interested in the actual real-world
> implementation of this. What kind of language do you use in the
> copyright assignement agreement? Is there a template that cn be
> copied by others? Do you require hard copy signed and
> snail-mailed to consider it l
Henningsen wrote:
> My understanding is this: As the copyrightholder to my code, even if I
> release it under the GPL, I am not bound by the terms of the GPL, and can
> include code under a different license such as the MIT license. However, if
> someone else uses my code under the terms of the G
> I will only integrate contributor's code into my codebase if they hand over
> copyright to alifegames.com (in exchange for a fair share of any profits
> that may derive from commercial licenses to the code in the future), so I
> will be able to release my own core code at any time under any lice
I will only integrate contributor's code into my codebase if they hand over
copyright to alifegames.com (in exchange for a fair share of any profits
that may derive from commercial licenses to the code in the future), so I
will be able to release my own core code at any time under any license I
wi
What Ms. Cooper has to say about Sun's open-source licensing is
absolutely authoritative, since she spearheaded the entire process for
Sun Microsystems. (Well done!)
I just wanted to add that I slightly misread the text about OpenOffice
on http://www.openoffice.org/license.html . I can see how
26 matches
Mail list logo
