Brian,
I am surprised that Sun is still making this an issue. I thought several of
us had already told them that their proposed Notice is flat-out incompatible
with open source:
NOTICE FROM SUN MICROSYSTEMS:
Any redistributed derivative work of the software licensed hereunder
must be c
I understood that he was helping me to find the right place to get an answer
to my question so all I can said is thanks for the suggestion and for the
answer.
- Original Message -
From: "anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Du
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> The most that Sun ought to reasonably require is that its trademarks
> and certification marks not be applied to derivative works without a
> separate license from Sun. This is very different from the case
> of being allowed to reuse Sun's own code, where
Quoting anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> If you didn't object you wouldn't note.
We seem to have a quibbler among us.
> Why don't you have OSI appoint you moderator?
> Otherwise hop on over to Slashdot with the rest of
> the obnoxious gamers and script-kiddies.
Oh wait: Correction, we seem to hav
> 1. I note without particular objection that your question is
off-topic
> for this list. Like practically all other recent posts, it hasn't had
> anything to do with OSI or examining candidate licence for
> OSD-compliance.
If you didn't object you wouldn't note.
Why don't you have OSI appoint
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
> What I need are solid sound-bite-y easy-to-explain but non-dogmatic
> arguments as to why such a conformance requirement is not compatible
> with the way Open Source works (putting aside compatibility with any
> particular licenses).
Why, it's very simple. Suppose I
6 matches
Mail list logo
