There are narrower definitions definitions. I recall an 80% definition
in the tax code and a 90% definition in state corporate codes. I
haven't worked with these in years (a change for which I'm grateful),
but I'm sure they can be found without too much trouble. I can't recall
how dense th
Mitchell,
A possibly naive question: The text you submitted is a _broad_ definition
that is in common use. Is there a similar _narrow_ definition as well?
I don't see that this text would be the right way for a quid-pro-quo
license to define the legal entity in which distribution doesn't happen,
David Johnson wrote:
> > So, what if it turns out that the present GPL doens't hold up with regard
> > to dynamic linking? Some future version of the GPL might have to place a
> > constraint on the user regarding combination of works on the user's system
> > that would, if it were distributed in
Mitchell Baker wrote:
> As to the question of the scope of a corporate entity, the MPL uses a
> "control" standard often found in corporate documents, securities
> documents and statutes. The language is the sort everyone hates --
> clearly written by lawyers for laawyers. I've included it
>
Russell Nelson wrote:
> > their users the freedom I've given them, or even an acknowledgement of
> > my work or a notice of where to get a copy of their own, because the
> > service-users will never get to see the source and/or the license.
> > And I'm not fine with that.
>
> That Way Lies Dr
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 02:21:52AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> "The rights to use the program must not be conditional,
>except for conditions on uses performed in service
>to any non-licensed party."
Are you sure that this language works in context of OSD #7?
Also, you shou
John Cowan wrote:
> > Well, I could answer that in two, conflicting ways. If distribution becomes
> > irrelevant, the spirit of the GPL in that respect is obsolete, isn't it?
>
> I don't see how that could happen, unless bandwidth (including the last
> mile) becomes "too cheap to meter".
I don't
Bruce Perens wrote:
> John Cowan:
>
>> I don't understand how this breaches the spirit of the GPL any more than
>> providing ASP-style access to the unmodified work does (i.e. not at
>> all).
>> If you are free to make private mods to GPLed programs for your own
>> use, why not for others' use?
> No, I want this to fit in one paragraph. This is something more than
> "The license must not place any restrictions on use", but not much
> more. Something in the form of "The only permissible use restrictions
> are X, Y, and Z. Goals that I can't fit in such a simple form will
> probably not be
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 01:40:08AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-d, which require
> publication of sources upon "deployment."
Great. I'd like to hear comments upon the probability that this can be
enforced, and the way the license must be pr
Bruce Perens wrote:
>From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>To be concrete, suppose I provide a "fast grepping" service.
>>
>
>Grep is an over-simple case, which might lead you to trivialize the problem.
>
>Consider Evolution, OpenOffice, or GNU Emacs. Postulate that someone makes
>a way for so
Bruce wrote (in part)
> So, what if it turns out that the present GPL doens't hold up with regard
> to dynamic linking? Some future version of the GPL might have to place a
> constraint on the user regarding combination of works on the user's system
> that would, if it were distributed in that for
David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in part)
> The only way around this is for the author to put his morality on the shelf
> and try to impose click-wrap licensing on me (bad), or to be honest and
> present me with a contract prior to my aquisition of the software (doubtful
> it would mee
I just want to point out that there is one license
already approved which has a "public performance"
clause like Bruce gave as an example..
The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-d, which require
publication of sources upon "deployment."
Can we use this concrete case to clarify the goal of
Bruce wrote (in part)
> Is this fair to them? I contend that this sort of activity should
> be placed outside of the covenant represented by the GPL. Richard and
> Eben don't necessarily agree with me - yet.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 12:37:06AM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Is the goal he
Bruce wrote (in part)
> So, what if it turns out that the present GPL doens't hold up with regard
> to dynamic linking? Some future version of the GPL might have to place a
> constraint on the user regarding combination of works on the user's system
> that would, if it were distributed in that fo
Bruce wrote (in part)
> aren't. Is this fair to them? I contend that this sort of activity should
> be placed outside of the covenant represented by the GPL. Richard and
> Eben don't necessarily agree with me - yet.
>
Is the goal here guaranteeing freedom of use, or is it trying
to increase the
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 12:20 pm, Bruce Perens wrote:
> So, what if it turns out that the present GPL doens't hold up with regard
> to dynamic linking? Some future version of the GPL might have to place a
> constraint on the user regarding combination of works on the user's system
> that would
Hello
Sorry for my English, but let me try to offer another
perspective.
> Consider this from the perspective of the creator of Evolution,
> OpenOffice, or GNU Emacs. This person has put an immense
> amount of work
> out in the public with the expectation that improvements that
> are widely
> us
Emiliano writes:
> their users the freedom I've given them, or even an acknowledgement of
> my work or a notice of where to get a copy of their own, because the
> service-users will never get to see the source and/or the license.
> And I'm not fine with that.
That Way Lies Dragons.
Since th
From: Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yep, like making it available through VNC, for example. A very clear
> violation of the spirit of the GPL;
I'm glad you agree.
> but the grey area between this and the examples in the earlier messages
> seems very hard to divide between clear and non
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Consider Evolution, OpenOffice, or GNU Emacs. Postulate that someone makes
> a way for somebody to use one of those programs as if it were running
> natively on their computer, without ever activating the "distribution"
> terms of the GPL. And that same s
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, John Cowan wrote:
> To be concrete, suppose I provide a "fast grepping" service. You send me
> a regex and some URLs, and I use GNU grep to to send you specific parts
> of the documents specified by the URLs. We will neglect whether the
> copyright of the document's author i
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 7:05 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> phil hunt scripsit:
> > I also notice your word "taint" used to describe the GPL. Here, you
> > seem to be implying that you dislike the most popular open source
> > license, and by implication, people who choose to write software under
> >
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 7:55 pm, Colin Percival wrote:
> To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely
> horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm
> reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the
> license?
You are not interested in defending your motive
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To be concrete, suppose I provide a "fast grepping" service.
Grep is an over-simple case, which might lead you to trivialize the problem.
Consider Evolution, OpenOffice, or GNU Emacs. Postulate that someone makes
a way for somebody to use one of those progr
Darn. I garbled. Delete the "don't". The terms of the GPL require you to give
source code to the person to whom you distribute the binary. And nobody
else. The copyright holder can sue for infringement but can't compel the
infringer to give the copyright holder a copy of the source code. He can
co
Bruce Perens scripsit:
> > It's not at all clear to me that when I send you bits, you massage them
> > on your own computer, and you send me different bits back, that this
> > constitutes a public performance of anything.
>
> You would not doubt that it was a public performance if those bits wer
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 10:24:02PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Or A, to look from a different side on this?
No.
The terms of the GPL don't require you to give source code to the
person to whom you distribute the binary. If you fail to do so, the
copyright holder can sue you for infringement,
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't see how that could happen, unless bandwidth (including the last
> mile) becomes "too cheap to meter".
Think about think clients and "internet appliances". If a lot of people go
to thin clients because they want to oursource their system administratio
Bruce Perens scripsit:
> Well, I could answer that in two, conflicting ways. If distribution becomes
> irrelevant, the spirit of the GPL in that respect is obsolete, isn't it?
I don't see how that could happen, unless bandwidth (including the last
mile) becomes "too cheap to meter".
> On the ot
John Cowan:
> I don't understand how this breaches the spirit of the GPL any more than
> providing ASP-style access to the unmodified work does (i.e. not at all).
> If you are free to make private mods to GPLed programs for your own
> use, why not for others' use? This is just timesharing under
John Cowan wrote:
> > Let's consider also the "ASP problem". Somebody makes extensive changes
> > to a GPL work, and deploys that work as a service, perhaps via .NET, rather
> > than distributing the work. This circumvents the GPL because the GPL terms
> > activate upon distribution.
>
> I don't
> To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely
> horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm
> reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the
> license?
Well, if you had submitted the license without the manifesto attached,
people would have considered the li
Bruce Perens scripsit:
> The assignment is to propose a modification to the OSD to make explicit
> the implicit prohibition in the OSD on odious requirements on the user.
> The examples of odious user requirements that are brought up most often
> are badgeware ("if you use this software, put my i
Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely horrible
> motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm reporting to the
> Illuminati, and get back to discussing the license?
Well said.
I thought the second-guessing of your motives
Please make sure replies in this thread are copied to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
I'm afraid that my life is so complicated of late that I don't often have
time to read lists, no matter how important they are.
The assignment is to propose a modification to the OSD to make explicit
the implicit prohibiti
To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely
horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm
reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the
license?
Colin Percival
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Rick Moen scripsit:
> Here, I'm quite certain you're confusing me with another poster.
Sorry, yes I was. Too much email, too little time
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne ch
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> With respect (and as a master digressor myself), I think you went beyond
> digressing and over to attacking Colin's motives.
Here, I'm quite certain you're confusing me with another poster.
--
Cheers, We write preciselyWe say ex
Rick Moen scripsit:
> I'm fully aware of having digressed, and hope to be forgiven, some day.
With respect (and as a master digressor myself), I think you went beyond
digressing and over to attacking Colin's motives.
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar pre
phil hunt scripsit:
> I also notice your word "taint" used to describe the GPL. Here, you
> seem to be implying that you dislike the most popular open source license,
> and by implication, people who choose to write software under this
> license; thus it seems to me therefore that you dislike a
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> The point of this discussion is not to determine whether this license
> is a Good Thing. Its author has declared a desire to release software
> under the license; what we need to do is to determine whether there is
> any reason why such software cannot b
Rick Moen scripsit:
> What you've written is, at best, a solution in search of a problem.
> (My view; yours for a small royalty fee and disclaimer of
> reverse-engineering rights.)
The point of this discussion is not to determine whether this license
is a Good Thing. Its author has declared a
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 1:55 pm, Colin Percival wrote:
> At 14:04 13/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
> >I agree. The entire intent behind this license is to be
> >deliberately incompatible with the most commonly used open
> >source license.
>
>No, it isn't. The intent is to ensure that a
Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> As I said, there is a *tradition*. Traditions aren't always followed,
> and the last thing I want is for a project to fork into two incompatible
> versions based on their licenses.
If you have mindshare, then the existence of other people's forks ba
At 06:36 13/03/2002 -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > There is a tradition that once a project has adopted a given license
> > (eg, the BSD operating systems and the BSD license), further work is
> > incorporated under the same license. This merely formalize
Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> There is a tradition that once a project has adopted a given license
> (eg, the BSD operating systems and the BSD license), further work is
> incorporated under the same license. This merely formalizes that.
I may regret getting suckered into this d
> No, it isn't. The intent is to ensure that a "free for both open and
>closed source use" body of code can't be turned into a "free for open
>source use only" body of code. I mention "GPL-taint" because the GPL is
>the most common example of an (from my point of view) overly restrictive
>
At 14:04 13/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote:
>I agree. The entire intent behind this license is to be
>deliberately incompatible with the most commonly used open
>source license.
No, it isn't. The intent is to ensure that a "free for both open and
closed source use" body of code can't be turn
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 8:14 pm, Andy Tai wrote:
>
> The only point in this license seems to be the GPL
> incompatibility. And you then blame the GPL? If the
> GPL is "guilty" of anything, then you are "guilty" of
> the same.
>
> So this license creates "walls" in open source code
> and divide
51 matches
Mail list logo
