That's what I thought too. However, that clause is very cleverly written.
They might not have accepted AFL or that patent clause for MyCoolApp,
instead choosing to license it under ZPL and combine it with some GPL code.
However, they are also using YourCoolTool which is licensed under OSL. They
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Almost every patent grant included in an OSI-approved open source
> license already meets the new W3C patent policy. Here, for example, is
> how the Open Software License (OSL) says it:
>
>2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor hereby grants
>Y
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:29:14PM -0400, Bruce Dodson wrote:
> Or, if you don't want to license under GPL, you could dual-license under
> another GPL-compatible license. Dual licensing always confuses me though:
> which set of rights am I using? That determines which set of requirements
> will a
David Johnson scripsit:
> But someone with a legal knowledge should still be looking them over, because
> a lot of us operate under "common sense" rather than what a court would say
> should a license ever be taken before one.
Sure. The point is, we should be the first cut.
--
He made the Le
> But someone with a legal knowledge should still be looking
> them over, because
> a lot of us operate under "common sense" rather than what a
> court would say
> should a license ever be taken before one.
Oooops! That's true, but please everyone remember that OSI does not
evaluate licenses
Or, if you don't want to license under GPL, you could dual-license under
another GPL-compatible license. Dual licensing always confuses me though:
which set of rights am I using? That determines which set of requirements
will apply.
Question: How does the "Mutual Termination for Patent Action"
On Thursday 21 November 2002 07:18 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
> John Cowan writes:
> > With respect, Russ, that's bassackwards. Collectively if not
> > individually, the members of the list have far more free man-hours than
> > you do. You should pass submissions straight on to the list and let
> The pain you speak of, is this from a purely "legal" stand point?
> If so, in what manner does it hinder or "cause pain" to an end user?
I'm not a lawyer so I never speak from a "legal" standpoint, even when I'm
talking about licenses. The pain is from a technical standpoint. If I make
a modif
>2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor hereby grants
>You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual,
>non-sublicenseable license, under patent claims owned or
>controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original
>Work as furnished by the Licensor ("Licensed Cl
> > I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL.
> > What have I missed?
>
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
and scroll down a bit if necessary.
Thanks for the link. It appears that RMS has spoken (albeit not to us)
and I need to respond
Hi,
This is probably a FAQ too, but regarding the mutual termination
for patent action clause:
Say I have a proprietary application and want to use someone's
patent. Can I implement a small library containing only the patented
code, license the library under the AFL, then use that library f
Hi Larry,
You wrote:
The patent grants in most open source licenses are fully compatible
with
the W3C patent policy. The patent grants in the OSL and AFL are *not*
tied to specific implementations and are broader than the W3C patent
grant.
I understand they may be compatible, but I'm not clea
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> There is no reason I'm aware of why code licensed under the AFL can't be
> incorporated into GPL-licensed works.
Clause 6 of the GPL says:
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receiv
> > 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X
> license is?
> >i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL
> applications use
> >it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also?
>
> You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible;
> he doesn't say
> I'm aware most Open Source licenses have patent grants. But
> in all the
> cases I've seen, those grants are tied to the specific
> implementation.
> My impression is that the W3C requires that the patents be
> royalty-free for all possible implementations, not just your own.
> Right?
[ Please discuss this license. -russ ]
Good morning,
I'd like to submit the OpenMap Software License for approval by OSI. This is a
license that we've used for the past few years to cover the use of our software
as produced by our company, BBN Technologies in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
http:
[ Revised license for discussion. -russ ]
following the dscussion in the mailing list, i substituted an article
which was originally written by me with an article (the #3) coming from
The Q Public License Version 1.0. Now this license derives directly from
the Zope Public License (ZPL) Version 2.
Havoc Pennington scripsit:
> 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is?
>i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use
>it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also?
You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; he doe
Hi to all
I'm not a lawyer like Mike, just a developer, and english is not my
mother language, so, i think that what i wrote may be not so
understandable.
I will try to fix the points and explain what i meant.
Well, points 7 and 8 in DPL derived from the point 4 in the OPEN SOURCE
DEFINITION (htt
Hi,
I'm sure these are FAQs but I have a couple of questions about using
the AFL.
1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is?
i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use
it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also?
2. What notice s
Hi Larry,
We're looking forward to the complete review. In the meantime, here's
some comments:
On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 17:28, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> You realize, of course, that the following definition from your license
> goes way beyond what a derivative work is under copyright law. That's
Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit:
> I agree the list members could function as first-line review
> for licenses, AS LONG AS THEY REMEMBER THIS: We are
> ambassadors for open source. We want more open source. And
> those proposing licenses are newbies, not converts. Be
> gentle.
Sounds good.
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John Cowan writes:
> > With respect, Russ, that's bassackwards. Collectively if not individually,
> > the members of the list have far more free man-hours than you do. You
> > should pass submissions straight on to the list and
Vladimir Pastukhov scripsit:
> This is a request for approval of NauSite Public License.
> NauSite is an open source Content Management System for
> web sites written by Naumen company (www.naumen.ru).
This license is obviously Open Source, but Naumen should consider
the Academic Free License 1.2
[ Please discuss this license. Chances are 99 to 1 that a name-only
change will be approvable. -russ ]
Hello,
This is a request for approval of NauSite Public License.
NauSite is an open source Content Management System for
web sites written by Naumen company (www.naumen.ru).
The license is a c
John Cowan writes:
> With respect, Russ, that's bassackwards. Collectively if not individually,
> the members of the list have far more free man-hours than you do. You
> should pass submissions straight on to the list and let one or more of
> us shoot them down if they are obvious losers.
Ok
Hi,
Excuse me if this is a silly question..
> The QPL uses the same tactic to control distribution of customized versions
> of Qt. But this creates is a pain for developers and end-users alike.
The pain you speak of, is this from a purely "legal" stand point?
If so, in what manner does it hind
I see frequently something like this (or in general modified licences):
> Please discuss this license. Graziano reports that the only change
> from the Zope license are terms 7 and 8. -russ ]
Although I think it is not legal because copyright statement (but IANAL),
I can see *sometime* improveme
Russell Nelson scripsit:
> I'm a volunteer, Bruce, with a TODO list longer than your arm. The
> problem with license submittals is that I try to pre-vet them, so that
> the license-discuss people don't have to waste their time with
> licenses that are obviously unacceptable.
With respect, Rus
29 matches
Mail list logo
