On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which got me wondering. Exactly what world do you live in that
> software is NOT considered a document, controlled by copyright law?
The world where software is covered as much by patent law, trade secret
law
> Where I'm from it's a legal fact
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Because there is currently no OSI approved license
> that says "copy/distribute/no-modify".
> yet the defition appears to support one.
I've addressed this.
"There's a significant difference between being able to distribute
pristine source+patches v
On Monday 27 August 2001 09:44 pm, Greg Herlein wrote:
> > To quote
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> > ``You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
> > privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
> > exist. If you do publish yo
> To quote
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> ``You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
> privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
> exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
> notify anyone in part
Greg Herlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Of course. He just can't [*] call his license either (IMHO) Open Source
> > or Free.
>
> Perhaps not Free. Why not open source? You can read, modify,
> and redistribute the source. The only caveat is that you have to
> send the author a copy of th
> Of course. He just can't [*] call his license either (IMHO) Open Source
> or Free.
Perhaps not Free. Why not open source? You can read, modify,
and redistribute the source. The only caveat is that you have to
send the author a copy of the changes? Come on! What's not free
abotu that? Con
Greg Herlein scripsit:
> This cuts to the chase of a lot of the arguments among the open
> source and free software people lately. I think you
> mis-spoke: it may not be considered "Free Software" but it most
> certainly is open source.
I may be in error, but I did not misspeak.
> Fundamental
> > I wish to release a program, and make it open source, everything is
> > modifiable program and documentation, but other developer's have to report
> > the modifications to me (the founding member) by sending me a copy of the
> > modified program or/and application/documentation (this includ
On Monday 27 August 2001 07:25 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> As much GNU/Linux development
> happens outside the immediate auspices of the FSF, the old "GNU
> discourages man" gripe fails.
Since much of the userland and environment for Linux comes from GNU, GNU's
attitudes towards man pages is p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> Because there is currently no OSI approved license
> that says "copy/distribute/no-modify".
> yet the defition appears to support one.
You keep ignoring the QPL and the Artistic License, and everyone else keeps
ignoring the fact that you mean to allow patches.
--
On Monday 27 August 2001 08:37 am, Randy Kramer wrote:
> There are some other "open source" or "free" documentation licenses.
> One place to look is http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL.
> There is also something like an "open content" license somewhere. As
> usual, there is some contov
On Monday 27 August 2001 05:53 am, Daniel MD wrote:
> I wish to release the program to the world, make it open source, everything
> is modifiable program and documentation, but other developer's have to
> report the modifications to me (the founding member) by sending me a copy
> of the modified
Daniel MD scripsit:
> I wish to release a program, and make it open source, everything is
> modifiable program and documentation, but other developer's have to report
> the modifications to me (the founding member) by sending me a copy of the
> modified program or/and application/documentation
On Monday 27 August 2001 12:41 pm, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
> Not as a primary topic of discussion, no. Unaffiliated documentation
> suffers from bitrot at a much higher rate than affiliated documentation
> (and how often do you find out-of-date man pages in Linux?).
A bit off topic, but I find
"Matthew C. Weigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Greg London wrote:
>
> > 1) software IS documentation.
>
> The stance that puts software under copyright as opposed to patent law
> opines that a software is a document, but that's entirely different.
according
Hello, my name is Daniel MD.
I find myself in need of counseling, in the matter's of software licensing,
i would like to know if there is a comparative map of the approved
licenses, if not i would like if someone form this list to council me in
the following issues.
I wish to release a progra
>"Matthew C. Weigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > You've got the source, why don't you know how to use it? ;-)
>> a dismissive statement, hiding behind backhanded humor.
>
>That's right. Dismissive of the attitude that the software itself
>should not p
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You've got the source, why don't you know how to use it? ;-)
>
> a dismissive statement, hiding behind backhanded humor.
That's right. Dismissive of the attitude that the software itself
should not provide adequate documentation. You've apparen
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, SamBC wrote:
> > Yes. And it's that subset that is of interest to the Free SOFTWARE and
> > Open Source SOFTWARE community. Not the set of documents specifically
> > outside that subset.
>
> Is it not plausible, though, that some documentation is outside a
> piece of softwa
Greg London wrote:
> David Johnson wrote:
> > The OSI does not approve documentation licenses,
> > only software licenses.
Greg,
There are some other "open source" or "free" documentation licenses.
One place to look is http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL.
There is also something like
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Yes. And it's that subset that is of interest to the Free SOFTWARE and
> Open Source SOFTWARE community. Not the set of documents specifically
> outside that subset.
Is it not plausible, though, that some docu
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Greg London wrote:
> > If OSI has a commitment to furthering open source
> > software, then a documentation license would greatly
> > advance open soure. What good is software if you don't
> > know how to use it?
>
> You've got the source, why
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> The OSI does not approve documentation licenses, only software licenses.
Is this mentioned anywhere on the OSI webpages? I ask only because this may
explain the lack of any action for a particularly long period of
Hello, my name is Daniel MD.
I find myself in need of counseling, in the matter's of software licensing,
i would like to know if there is a comparative map of the approved
licenses, if not i would like if someone form this list to council me in
the following issues.
I have developed a softwar
24 matches
Mail list logo
