Good point regarding misuse since the initial confusion arose from the use
of "aggregate software" in the OSD. Under Art. 1-1, I will delete footnote
3.
As for Larry's revision of Art. 1 of the OSD, that seems fine with me and
consistent with the original annotated version of the OSD. In removing
Mark's point re-introduces the copyright misuse issue since he is correct
that there is a grey area concerning the validity of license restrictions
on copyrightable collective works are concerned. Larry's proposal avoids
this problem as long as it is agreeable that the OSD should not have
anything
I think Larry's point is a plausible interpretation as well, but the point
is well-taken by this discussion that the current version of Art. 1 needs
revision. Unless there is a very good reason to include a guideline on
"aggregate software" under Art. 1 of the OSD, which covers free
distribution,
You have presented arguments against the use of "deliberately obfuscated
source code" as well as the reference to "well documented;" since the former
appears in the current version of Art. 2 of the OSD and the latter was used
as explanatory language in the model code, I can delete the latter, no
pr
We are assuming that there has not been complete past compliance with some
of the guidelines in the OSD; hence, this process is meant to make
compliance easier by clarifying and updating the OSD. IMHO, I think we all
know well-documented source code when we see it.
Rod
- Original Message
> IMHO, I think we all know well-documented source
> code when we see it.
>
Excuse me, but is the OSD being written for the
esteemed and talented frequent posters to this
list or as a guideline for a wider audience ?
Cheers. dj
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ez
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 02:48:16PM -0500, Howard Jacobson wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "abusing code." Since all of our CCM code
> is copyrighted by Red Hat and owned by us, I'm not sure how we could be
> abusing anyone else's rights.
If that were strictly true and the entire code was
Mr Jacobson,
First, it wouldn't be the first time a company possibly abusing code
developed under an OSS-like license would have to change
their practices (think NVidia, Sigma Designs, etc.).
I would like to suggest that you chose a BSD style license and
don't acquire tainted assets from comp
Sorry for the off-topic, but does anyone know of
technology-related opensource forums?
Specifically, I'm interested in the issue of the
feasibility of proving that some executable was
derivative of some
"open source" source.
Regards,
Reggie Guevara
__
Can I get your comments on a specific scenario:
App A, based on API B, "aggregated" w/ Library C, also
based on API B, wherein "aggregated" means App A is
totally independent of Library C except via API B, and
it is only the end-user who explicitly references
Library C via "configuring" App A.
Th
Hi Reggie,
I have been thinking of posting your *exact* message for a week or two now;
thank you for doing so, and in such clear terms.
On Monday 20 January 2003 13:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> b) end-user - App A, API B, and Library C. By
> explicitly configuring Library C into App A, the
> e
Hi Florian,
I would like to give my opinion as an outsider from Red Hat. I believe
what you have said maybe correct / legally right (not sure, I am
developer). But from a business sense I think Red Hat may not yet be
able to give the latest and greatest source. Due to the fact in my
opinion th
12 matches
Mail list logo
