Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source via a
> website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code "on a
> medium customarily used for software interchange." I now get almost all
> of my software, including proprietary programs
"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote:
> The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate trademark
> license is legally not possible, at least without many more controls
> over the quality of derivative works than would be acceptable by the
> open source community.
>
I don't think they need to c
I would like to know if there is anything experience with (how to put it)
freedom seeking or liberating software licenses ?
What i mean is that the software is not free until it returns initial
investment and becomes free afterward...
Organizations like FSF could keep track on how far from becomin
I know this has been up for discussion before, but I didn't really follow
the thread, and I want to know some extra things.
Is there any current open source licenses that can enforce the software to
follow an exact algorithm (as provided by the copyright owner) and
protocol? Does any of the lice
John Cowan wrote:
> Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
>
> > As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source via a
> > website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code "on a
> > medium customarily used for software interchange." I now get almost all
> > of my software,
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
>
>> As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source
>> via a website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code
>> "on a medium customarily used for software interchange." I now get
>> almost al
Patrik Wallstrom scripsit:
> Is there any current open source licenses that can enforce the software to
> follow an exact algorithm (as provided by the copyright owner) and
> protocol?
No. That would limit the freedom to create derivative works.
> Does any of the licenses also prohibit a name
Rick Moen scripsit:
> The above FAQ claims physical media ("disk or tape") are necessary because
> "not every user is on a network". But isn't it equally true that not
> every user can read any specific physical-media format you might
> nominate as a universal distribution medium?
Indeed, th
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
>
> Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
>
> > As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute
> source via
> > a website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source
> code "on a
> > medium
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 1:40 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
>
>
> I think you have identified three
On Monday 21 January 2002 12:07 pm, Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
> I know this has been up for discussion before, but I didn't really
> follow the thread, and I want to know some extra things.
>
> Is there any current open source licenses that can enforce the software
> to follow an exact algorithm (as
I don't think copyright protects an algorithm. I think you'd need a
patent for that. So, I don't think you can license an algorithm. Of
course, IANAL (just anal).
On the other hand, I always thought forking code was a bad thing. Unless
you wanted to develop a nice commercial alternative t
Quoting Michael Bauer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On the other hand, I always thought forking code was a bad thing.
Not really.
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/essays/forking.html
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Michael Bauer wrote:
> I don't think copyright protects an algorithm. I think you'd need a
> patent for that. So, I don't think you can license an algorithm. Of
> course, IANAL (just anal).
Michael,
LOL!
You can license something that is patented, thus, if an algorithm is
patented, it could
So, is the algorithm patented as well as copyrighted? If so, I think
another can of worms is about to have the top popped off.
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Randy Kramer wrote:
> Michael Bauer wrote:
> > I don't think copyright protects an algorithm. I think you'd need a
> > patent for that. So, I d
Ah, a most excellent and enlightening article, Rick. Thank you.
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Michael Bauer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > On the other hand, I always thought forking code was a bad thing.
>
> Not really.
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/essays/forking.html
> --
>
Rick Moen scripsit:
> Quoting Michael Bauer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > On the other hand, I always thought forking code was a bad thing.
>
> Not really.
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/essays/forking.html
[T]he right to fork is like the right to strike, the
right to sue, or the r
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:34:10AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> But I still have a concern. I have always argued that we should review
> and approve licenses according to a published standard. This prevents
> us from being (or appearing to be) arbitrary and capricious. So where
> in the OS
Michael Bauer wrote:
> Randy Kramer wrote:
> So, is the algorithm patented as well as copyrighted? If so, I think
> another can of worms is about to have the top popped off.
>
> > You can license something that is patented, thus, if an algorithm is
> > patented, it could be licensed.
What algor
begin Rick Moen dicebat
>Quoting Michael Bauer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> On the other hand, I always thought forking code was a bad thing.
>
>Not really.
>http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/essays/forking.html
As anyone knows, emacs is short for
<< Escape Meta Alt Ctrl Shift
ma"I use JOE"neo
--
end
Quoting Thorsten Glaser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> begin Rick Moen dicebat
> As anyone knows, emacs is short for
> << Escape Meta Alt Ctrl Shift
Eighty Megs And Constantly Swapping.
(We could go on.)
--
Cheers,
Rick Moen Emacs is a decent operating system,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> If the request is taken to be "to any third party...on a medium
> customarially used for software interchange", and the third party in
> question doesn't have network access, I'd grant the FSF wiggle room for
> their argument. Otherwise you are disc
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Randy Kramer wrote:
> > So, is the algorithm patented as well as copyrighted? If so, I think
> > another can of worms is about to have the top popped off.
> >
> > > You can license something that is patented, thus, if an algorithm is
> > > patented, it could be licensed.
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Gray
> Subject: Re: NCSA Open Source License
>
> I don't think they need to create a separate ``trademark
> license''. They just need to make sure that anyone who might
> consider releasing a product based on Apache is not
Patrik Wallstrom wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Randy Kramer wrote:
>
> > > So, is the algorithm patented as well as copyrighted? If so, I think
> > > another can of worms is about to have the top popped off.
> > >
> > > > You can license something that is patented, thus, if an algorithm is
> > >
On Monday 21 January 2002 08:03 am, Michael Bauer wrote:
> On the other hand, I always thought forking code was a bad thing. Unless
> you wanted to develop a nice commercial alternative to open source.
A quick list of Good Forks(tm):
Gnu Emacs / XEmacs
Some bad blood still exists betwe
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> The Q Public license 1.0 (QPL), for exmaple, says something different.
> QPL 4 b says you must give source code to "all recipients of a
> binary", "without any charges beyond the costs of data transfer"
> (which precludes a profit.) I think that is unfair. Consi
You might say this question was once simple, but is no longer. A one
word answer will not do...this is particularly so with regard to
software (software, by definition, involves the practical application of
algorithms).
I suspect the person who posed the question may not have posed it as
preci
So where
in the OSD, or in the GPL, do we make it clear that potentially
burdensome license requirements (however those are defined) are not
allowed?
I recommend you allow them but deprecate them. That is what we do.
We always did recognize the old BSD license as a free softwar
Are you assuming that they will not admit new ones?
After my conversation with Larry today, and getting a better idea of the
way he wants the license approval process to work, I'm going to change my
stance. I think there needs to be language added to the OSD, protecting
the user and developer fro
30 matches
Mail list logo
