Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I agree with the point that the creative spark is not communitarian. My
point -- if we are to use Eric Raymond's book as an example (see Raymond's
busness model "8 Free the Software, Sell the Brand") -- is that dual
licensing IS an authentic open source model.
Thi
In our case the free evaluation copy is the public NetBSD sources,
although we support a range of additional hardware which we have not
(yet) contributed back. We don't normally give out evaluation copies,
although we would probably do it if a prospective customer required it
to complete a sale.
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Again on words. It seems what you sell is not "open" after all,
> because you "have not contributed back yet". Your selling the
> future. That's a fine model, but again, what you sell, *when* you sell
> it, is not open.
Your first criticism was tha
If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are
similar in most respects - - except one distributed as a proprietary
product (without antitrust violations, i.e., legally) and the other through
open source dual -licensing - - the program that should do better is the
latter,
Ok, since you bit the academic discussion, here it goes.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are
similar in most respects - - except one distributed as a proprietary
product (without antitrust violations, i.e., legally) and the other t
Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source
software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is
that what we are selling is not publically available except through us
(or our customers if they choose to distribute it). I presume that
you see the shifting
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source
> > software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is
> > that what we are selling is not publically available except through us
> > (or our customers if they
<--- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
<...and the Attribution-ShareAlike license:
< http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
<(Why the other licenses would not be Open Source is left as an
http:/
You started out talking about open source software. There is
absolutely nothing in the definition of open source software which
requires it to be on an FTP site somewhere for public download. Open
source software which is not publically available is still fully open
source.
I think the open sourc
Though you protest that you are not against open source, I think your words
betray that protestation; certainly, arguing that those who support or
develop open source software "never sell open source directly, there is
always some 'trick'" - - is not exactly a praiseworthy outlook. In that
regard,
Marius Amado Alves scripsit:
> Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration.
It isn't closed-source, though. Anyone can clone it, and some people have.
--
Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan
of the Open Source movement.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Bruce Per
While it is not done in practise yet, (we are still arranging to make
it possible) Compiler Resources, Inc. does intend to "sell" open
source software (and at some level the FSF does so today or at least
did in the past).
We have a currently closed source product, Yacc++, that we intend to
release
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Though you protest that you are not against open source, I think your words
betray that protestation; certainly, arguing that those who support or
develop open source software "never sell open source directly, there is
always some 'trick'" - - is not exactly a praisewo
Le lundi 07 Juin 2004 14:46, Marius Amado Alves a écrit :
> The dual-licensing requires a market need for *closed* source. How
> can this be in line with the open source ideals?
>
> (Please note I'm not at all against practising the dual-licensing
> model, given the current state of affairs.)
Why
Why dual licensing should be connected to *closed* source?
You find many examples, such as Trolltech or MySQL, proposing such
dual-licensing schemes. Not bcause customers WANT closed source, but
simply because they also want to make internal develpment or internal
use which does not fit the GPL
Great information about the Yacc++ business, Chris. Yes, I'm sure it
helps. But I'll have to digest it carefully. I'll say something
eventually. Thanks a lot.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> This is just words, but anyway: dual-licensing involves a closed source
> license as much as an open one; in business terms, even more, because
> that's where the money is. So dual-licensing is really less an "open
> source model" than a "closed
Le lundi 07 Juin 2004 18:22, Marius Amado Alves a écrit :
> > You find many examples, such as Trolltech or MySQL, proposing
> > such dual-licensing schemes. Not bcause customers WANT closed
> > source, but simply because they also want to make internal
> > develpment or internal use which does not
If you're claiming the _only_ purpose of dual-licensing is to support
proprietary business models,
No, not *only*, but it seems the most common.
... then there are any number of
counter-examples. Offhand, the one that comes to mind is the AIC7xxx
SCSI host adapter block-device driver, which, when
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Nice case. Of course this happens only because the GPL is viral.
You know, you might want to save the polemics for a crowd that's less
experienced in these matters. With the possible exception of Ken Brown,
nobody here's likely to be impressed.
Sorry, but a word was missing in my sentence. you should read:
Not because customers WANT closed source, but simply because the same
customers also want to make internal development or internal use
which does not fit the GPL or other Open Source license.
No difference. I read "they" as "the same
[ Please discuss this license ]
Greetings,
The purpose of this message is to submit the Educational Community
License (ECL) for OSI certification. This request is driven by a recent
acceleration of application software projects in higher education (over
a dozen current projects with new grants
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. And mainly support (Red Hat
> Enterprise etc.) Not the open software (Fedora).
There is, as far as I can tell, nothing the least bit proprietary in the
software contents of any of the RHEL 3.0 variants, or
Nice case. Of course this happens only because the GPL is viral.
You know, you might want to save the polemics for a crowd that's less
experienced in these matters. With the possible exception of Ken Brown,
nobody here's likely to be impressed. ;->
No troll. I just said that to link to a previous
Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. And mainly support (Red Hat
Enterprise etc.) Not the open software (Fedora).
There is, as far as I can tell, nothing the least bit proprietary in the
software contents of any of the RHEL 3.0 variants
You're right and I was wrong on this point. I forgot
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> No troll. I just said that to link to a previous point of mine, namely
> that dual-licensing requires a "reciprocal" license.
>
> [Technically, viral = reciprocal. This has been discussed before. The
> difference is merely of perspective.
Ah,
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the open source "way" requires public availability,
> technically, for bazaar-like development to take place. But I'll have
> to sleep on this.
Let's not confuse bazaar-like development with open source software.
Remember that "The Cathedra
It is clear to me that OSD #6 does not prohibit direct sale of the
software. I've never heard anybody seriously claim otherwise.
It's another thing. By clause 6, you must either sell to all recipients,
or give away to all recipients. I think this makes software sale
incompatible with bazaar-like
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is clear to me that OSD #6 does not prohibit direct sale of the
> > software. I've never heard anybody seriously claim otherwise.
>
> It's another thing. By clause 6, you must either sell to all
> recipients, or give away to all recipients. I
The license of this project is not necessarily under control of the developer,
an employee at an academic institution. We're trying to move the project over to
sourceforge, but we're not sure how "OSI kosher" this license is.
The parts I'm unsure about are #3 (advertising materials) and #5 (attr
hi ya marius
On 7 Jun 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> > > Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the
> > > software.
> >
> > Then they should stop saying "because this software is provided free
> > of charge..."
>
>
Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the
software.
Then they should stop saying "because this software is provided free
of charge..."
Neither license says that.
Duh?
"NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE..."
(GPL)
--
license-discuss archive is at
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the
> >>>software.
> >>
> >>Then they should stop saying "because this software is provided free
> >>of charge..."
> > Neither license says that.
>
> Duh?
>
> "NO WARRANTY
>
> 11.
You said "provided free of charge."
The GPL says "licensed free of charge."
See the difference?
Not really, but duh to myself. I should know better. Maybe it will come
to me in my sleep. Thanks.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Thanks all for having putting up with this blockhead. I think I advanced
a bit. I make a fool of myself here and there. I only hope I'm a fool on
a hill. My vision is: free the software, but every author gets paid his
share when the software generates revenue. I try to juggle the license
terms
What part of OSD#6 prevents someone for charging to license the
software to one group and give the software away for free to another
as long as the same open source license is made available to both?
Actually, as long as the license is OSI compatible--meaning
effectively that some recipient could
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Rick Moen (and others) suggest the term "open source" be used only as
> defined by OSI. Maybe that would be a good thing, and as I said and
> pointed out (and Rick wasn't listening) I never say just "open source"
> tout court to mean something d
hi ya marius
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> Thanks all for having putting up with this blockhead. I think I advanced
> a bit. I make a fool of myself here and there. I only hope I'm a fool on
> a hill.
glad to watch the show, i learned a few things too watching ...
> My visi
Hi Brad,
A cursory examination doesn't reveal anything that looks like it
violates the OSD, but I did have a few comments:
1. While I think I understand the intent, your HTML version just
feels wrong:
"http://wheeler.kelley.indiana.edu/ecl1.htm";
One, despite the disclaimers, it looks like a
Hi Christian,
Almost like I just told the ECL fellow - isn't this the same as Apache
1.0?
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.0
What *is* our policy on licenses that are just name changes?
-- Ernie P.
IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc.
On Jun 7, 2004, at 12:16 PM, Christian Gunning wrote:
The license
I agree that the license complies with the OSD. I also agree that your last
paragraph could be clearer. I suspect that you could even delete it.
"The name and trademarks of copyright holder(s) may NOT be used in
advertising or publicity pertaining to the Original or Derivative Works
without speci
Dear Earnest,
Thank you for catching the formatting errors on the HTML - they have
been corrected.
Also, I sincerely apologize to the OSI community if I misunderstood the
instructions and intent for rendering the license in HTML. I was not at
all making a "sleazy attempt to pretend compliance"
You said "provided free of charge."
The GPL says "licensed free of charge."
See the difference?
Not really, but duh to myself. I should know better. Maybe it will come
to me in my sleep. Thanks. (Myself)
It didn't come in my sleep. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. If the
disclaimer were fo
Kindly tell what point you feel I'm trying to evade.
That your "SDC licence" plainly is proprietary.
The SDC Conditions v. 2 breach exactly clause 6 of the OSD (*). If
"proprietary" is the right term to describe (informally) a 9/10 open
source license, then OK, the SDC Conditions v. 2 are propri
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> The SDC Conditions v. 2 breach exactly clause 6 of the OSD (*). If
> "proprietary" is the right term to describe (informally) a 9/10 open
> source license, then OK, the SDC Conditions v. 2 are proprietary.
>
> BTW, that's a technicality that I believ
Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:
Requiring a fee for use is certainly a restriction. It's open source if
you charge someone a fee, but they can pass it on without anyone having
to pay anyone anything - but if such second-hand recipients have to pay
the original licensor money, it's not Open Source - by t
46 matches
Mail list logo
