On Tuesday 12 March 2002 4:07 am, Andy Tai wrote:
While this license probably is open source,
My reading of the license and the OSD suggests to me that it
isn't.
OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software [...]
License, 3 (c): The
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 1:16 am, Colin Percival wrote:
At 11 Mar 2002 20:57:24 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] resent my email to this
mailing list and added the line:
[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ]
No, I'm not.
To start with, the LGPL only applies to
At 15:37 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software [...]
License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work
is distributed must expressly prohibit the distribution of
further derivative works.
This
At 15:56 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 1:16 am, Colin Percival wrote:
To start with, the LGPL only applies to libraries.
That's not true, you can license any code with it.
Allow me to rephrase: The LGPL is intended for application
to libraries. (And
At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
While this license probably is open source, it is
misnamed (by using the term BSD in its name). It is
not a BSD license because it does NOT always permit
improvements to be used wherever they will help,
without idealogical or metallic constraint. For
Colin Percival scripsit:
I don't personally see any problem here -- section 2 grants you
some rights, section 3 grants you some rights, section 4 grants
you some rights -- but would people be happier if I explicitly
pointed out that the three sections cover different actions,
and obviously
OSD-related issues that I see
1. Someone already pointed out the OSD #1 issue. If
the license doesn't explicitly permit selling copies,
then copyright law reserves the right to the author.
2. Except possibly for the copyleft clause 4c, the license
fails to state that the terms apply to
I didn't define Definitions, either. ducks
I have no legal training,
No legal training required for discussion here. And
according to Larry, if you have legal training, there
is some discussion you should not be doing here. :-)
but I thought it would be clear that
Modification and
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 3:53 pm, Colin Percival wrote:
At 15:37 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software [...]
License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work
is distributed must
--- Colin Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
While this license probably is open source, it is
misnamed (by using the term BSD in its name
Of course this isn't a BSD license; if I wanted a
BSD license, I'd be using the BSD license.
Then please
10 matches
Mail list logo
