Is this list only for the purposes of approving new open source licenses or
is it also a discussion problem for problems with existing approved
licenses?
I have what I think is an interesting problem with the LGPL if anybody cares
to hear about it.
Sorry if I have come to the wrong place.
Adria
On Wednesday 14 November 2001 12:06 pm, Humphreys, Noel wrote:
> Signatures are not always necessary for formation of contracts. Software
> license arrangements fit comfortably within normal contract analysis
> patterns, and courts treat them that way. It's a mistake to think courts
> would not
On Wednesday 14 November 2001 10:11 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:58:54AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Currently OSD #1 reads:
> > The license shall not restrict any party from selling
> > or giving away the software
Chris Gray writes:
> Dear all,
>
> I was disappointed to see that our licence
> (URL:http://wonka.acunia.com/wonkapl.html) seems not to have made
> it onto the agenda of last Wednesday's meeting. Since the WPL is
> now really just revised-BSD with a polite request tacked onto the
> end (w
Forrest J. Cavalier III writes:
> 2. You may compile this into an executable form, or modify your
> copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming
> a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
> modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
>> > Okay. But my point was that the copyright holder can grant
>> > portions of his rights under copyright without obtaining
>> > the signature of the recipient(s), while usage rights require
>> > a contract.
> >
>> Do you think the GPL creates a contract?
>No, I don't. I think it is a mechanis
> -Original Message-
> From: Forrest J Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:52 AM
> Subject: RE: OSD compliant shareware
>
>
> > Okay. But my point was that the copyright holder can grant
> > portions of his rights under copyright without obtain
> Okay. But my point was that the copyright holder can grant
> portions of his rights under copyright without obtaining
> the signature of the recipient(s), while usage rights require
> a contract.
>
Do you think the GPL creates a contract?
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:07 AM
> Subject: Re: OSD compliant shareware
>
>
> Samuel Reynolds wrote:
>
>
> > In general, the right to *use* the work is implied by
> > ownership of a copy of the work, and li
Samuel Reynolds wrote:
> In general, the right to *use* the work is implied by
> ownership of a copy of the work, and limited to the
> copy of the work that one owns.
Right enough.
> For example, paintings
> (with a very few, contractually-obligated exceptions)
> can be displayed publically o
> -Original Message-
> From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:01 PM
> Subject: OSD compliant shareware
>
[snip]
> I am writing in the hopes that you could share
>- insights into the creation of the OSD, (why it did not
> exp
> I would love to have a commentary piece for Linux.com and/or
> NewsForge.com on how the spirit of the OSD may be different from its
> practical application.
>
> Anyone up for this?
Let's hear back from Bruce first, yuh guys?
Roblimo, you _could_ end up with many commentary pieces here. All eq
> Recognizing the weaknesses (and strengths) of speaking in symbolic terms.
> Is there anything _else_ that you feel helps define the 'spirit' of the OSD?
I would love to have a commentary piece for Linux.com and/or
NewsForge.com on how the spirit of the OSD may be different from its
pra
Bruce,
[snip]
> 1. The OSD is not written in statutory language.
While its not 'statutory' do you still consider it the 'definition' of
open-source?
> It still makes a _wonderful_ manifesto, its success speaks for that. But to
> apply it blindly would be foolhardy. I imagine that there is an
Hi all
R-Quant is an application that claims to be open source. I doubt it is and
I would like to have feedback from this list.
Extracted from the R-Quant license agreement
(http://www.smartquant.com/license.html):
> This software as well as its documentation or other related
> materials can
* Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04 05:33]:
> It's been pointed out that:
>
> 1. The OSD is not written in statutory language.
> 2. That it says what you _can't_ do rather than what you can and thus makes
>it easy to find loopholes, because there is an unbounded set of activities
>
Bruce Perens scripsit:
> I haven't read the decision in MAI vs Peak,
In brief: it said that a computer maintenance company (neither owner nor licensee)
couldn't run proprietary OS software, already installed, for hardware testing
purposes, because that involved making copies; the 117 safe harbor
17 matches
Mail list logo
