Item 16: I could be completely wrong here, but a) seems to effectively
create a situation where patent holders would pay others for use of
their own patents, while all third parties would be allowed to continue
infringement - with the only alternative being to withdraw the claim. Is
this
This is a very complicated license. Thanks for providing
the remarks and annotations. Very nice.
After a quick read, I think that it should not be OSI approved,
for numerous reasons, some follow.
Because the license is so complicated, it is not clear
to me that addressing the following
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
This is a very complicated license. Thanks for providing
the remarks and annotations. Very nice.
Yeah. We tried to simplify as possible. But lawyer language is not
common language. Anyway it seems that you found some bad ones. (none of
Abe or me are lawyers
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: OSI License Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Abe Kornelis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Steve Lhomme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Approval request for BXAPL
Approval request snipped
I have
- Original Message -
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Approval request for BXAPL
This is a very complicated license. Thanks for providing
the remarks and annotations. Very
Steve Lhomme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
A Contributor can be (or not) a Distributor.
A Distributor can be (or not) a Contributor.
That's what the definitions say.
The definition (at General #2) is as follows, and is formatted
thusly:
Contributor:
Any Distributor and/or
[Discussion of Paragraph 6]
The even if such marks are included is a problem when you also
require (in a separate paragraph) verbatim distribution of the
software. I read that as when there is any trademark in the
software, you are not permitted to distribute.
-- In my opinion that
The definition of User is too broad. It allows any
Distributor to force someone to be a User simply by
sending them a copy.
But does it arm any part of the license ? Or just a personal feeling ?
8.5 seems to have an effect for Users 15 may also.
16 also, but 16 is hard to follow.
Also, as written, I think this definition includes
compilers and linkers (and more! run-time ld? ) as
Source code.
ld is not a Source file.
The BXAPL says
Source Code is ... and any other files or members needed to
create the executables required to properly execute the Software
9 matches
Mail list logo
