On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, No Spam wrote:
> All, esp. Sam:
>
> It irks me that some companies or individuals could use open-source
> software for profit under "internal use", and not pay the original
> author.
If what you want is to create a monopoly and charge a monopoly rent
(paying the author ro
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Evan Prodromou writes:
> > So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:
>
> Only because nobody has submitted them.
As I see it only 2 of the 6 permutations would qualify as Open Source if
applied to software. The "no derivatives" and
Bob Scheifler asked:
> So the word "restrict" in OSD#6 (and the word "prevent" in the rationale)
> should be interpreted narrowly to mean "completely preclude"? Meaning,
> there's no obligation for all fields of endeavor to be on equal footing;
I think completely preclude would be *too* narrow. M
Yes. This is a trivially approvable open source license: ...
I'm the chairman, and I write up the consensus of the list for the OSI board.
Thanks very much for the information!
- Bob
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Bob Scheifler writes:
> So the word "restrict" in OSD#6 (and the word "prevent" in the rationale)
> should be interpreted narrowly to mean "completely preclude"? Meaning,
> there's no obligation for all fields of endeavor to be on equal footing;
> it's (definitionally) acceptable for the licens
> APSL 1.2 seems to discriminate between distribution for research use
> and distribution for commercial use (by imposing different obligations).
Yes, it does, however in both cases the licensing satisfies the Open
Source Definition. It's like making boys use the boys room and girls
use the girl
6 matches
Mail list logo
