The NASA license as proposed may be against the law in
many locations. For example, in Taiwan the
Constitution of the Republic of China is the supreme
law of the land. The NASA license demands that it is
governed by US Federal Law, which conflicts with the
ROC's sovereignty and copyright laws and
Mr. Rosen, you did not mention the source of the
article anywhere...
--- "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Court Forces SCO To Show Code Within 30 Days
> SCO claims it still intends to file copyright case
>
>
> 9:19 PM EST Sat., Dec. 06, 2003
>
> IBM won a significant legal vic
For your purpose, the BSD or the MIT license is better
than the OSSAL, which impose on businesses the burden
of not being able to use GPL code for their purposes.
Hopefully you will not force the FreeBSD project to
adapt your license.
--- Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DISCUSSION:
This is not your license (made by you).
How can you submit other people's license for
approval?
--- Zoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to submit the "Creative Commons
> Attribution-NonCommercial
> License" for review toward approval:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/license
making a software
> available for use by others, is analogous to the
> distribution of
> compiled binaries. As such, I believe
> web-applications should be
> warranted similar provisions as those offered to
> binary executables
> under the GPL.
>
=
Andy Tai, [EMAIL PRO
on and wxPython
> developers to feel
> comfortable contributing to Mindwrapper, and my
> clear sense is that most
> of them prefer BSD-style over GPL-style licenses.
>
> Donnal Walter, M.D.
> Arkansas Children's Hospital
=
Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free So
Maybe you shall try to get your software to be
acceptable according to the Debian Free Software
Guidelines. When your software can be accepted into
Debian GNU/Linux, you shall find no objections to your
software on this list. Debian is where the real test
is.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear
Why not just use the Guile license (GPL plus linking
permissions with non-GPL code). Problem solved.
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/guile-ref/Guile-License.html#Guile%20License
=
Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people
--- "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry, Brian, I just don't view these things as
> "additional
> restrictions" -- yet another example of vagueness in
> the GPL.
IYWO (In your wise opinion)
> Regardless, the explicit exclusion of a trademark
> license and the mutual
> defen
Mr. Rosen, why don't you put your statement referenced
below into the AFL, stating that
You are permitted to create derived work and relicense
such work under any license terms of your choice, and
I waive all my rights in regard to all such derived
work, including the requirements of this license
So the "AFL" no longer applies to the derived work, is
that what you are saying?
So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
a "AFL" work, licensing my derived work in any terms I
want, and people using the derived work will not be
bound by conditions of the "AFL" but by my terms only?
War is waged by sovereign governments or outlaws.
Outlaws do not care about your license; governments
are not subject to your license. Unless you have a
military more powerful than any other nation's on
earth, so you can wage war on any party not obeying
your license, you cannot enforce your lice
After a try more than 10 years ago, Steve Jobs does
not dare to do it again.
--- James Michael DuPont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a question about the APSL :
> http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/
> So, that means that the gcc changes are no longer
> under the gpl, but
> under the AP
--- Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Jan 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > I ship and sell binary only products, so I have
> an interest in not
> > > restricting people.
> >
> > Other than your customers, presumably.
> Restrictions cut both ways.
>
> In what way would a restrict
OSI has no rights to give permissions for works
copyrighted by other people... You need to contact the
authors of the licenses for permission.
The website of the Intellectual Property Office of the
Ministry of the Economic Affairs may be useful, as it
contains copyright laws and related informatio
Common Free Software/Open Source license names are
generally specific or unofficially named. BSD and MIT
licenses are named (customarily) from the school or
project names. GPL is commonly referred to as such
but RMS/GNU always insisted the official name is GNU
GPL.
Now, Mr. Rosen prefers to n
What is "Open software"? Maybe a more specific name
should be used...
So "open software license" can be applied to other
than software. Then why is it called a software
license? GPL can be applied to other things too, see
the WebGPL.
Should the OSI stay out of the license publishing
game? OS
"These terms" will make it not GPL compatible because
the GPL is not identical to "these terms." Maybe
something like "the source code (including any
modifications) must be made available to the
recipients under these terms or the terms of the GNU
General Public License..."
--- Bruce Dodson <[EM
"Free software" means a well defined set of software.
Whatever you define is not relevant, if it is not
compatible with the well accepted meanings of the
community. Software libre, software livre, Tzi4-Yu2
Ran3-Ti3, etc., all are names for the same thing in
different languages of the world. The
te:
>
> Free Software (fsf.org) and Open Source
> (opensource.org) are
> completly different matters.
> Some portuguese translations:
>
> Free Software (as in fsf.org/gnu.org) -> Software
> Livre
> Open Source (as in opensource.org)-> Código
> Aberto
>
y neighbor.
--- Rodrigo Barbosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 03:14:08PM -0700, Andy Tai
> wrote:
> > Hmmm...
> > Ransom Love loves to hold Linux binaries for
> ransom.
> Lemme see if I got this right.
>
> Holding the BINARIES is ag
Hmmm...
Ransom Love loves to hold Linux binaries for ransom.
Whether that follows the OSD or not, the community
should actively oppose Ransom Love, because holding
binaries for ransom is contrary to the spirit of open
source. Hopefully the community leaders like Mr.
Perens and the OSI can publi
--- Akil Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we must remember that the
> intent of the GNU
> license is to "license" totally free software for
> the creation of other
> totally free software. In other words, this license
> is not commercially
> viable.
>
These have been repeated 1000 times
Whether a license is "OSI-approved" does not address
these issues...
--- David Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> However,
> there are some clauses
> in the license which give me concern (patent
> entanglements, license
> entanglements, revocation upon litigation, etc.).
> >
> I am hoping
--- Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
> >While this license probably is open source, it is
> >misnamed (by using the term "BSD" in its name
>
>Of course this isn't a BSD license; if I wanted a
&
While this license probably is open source, it is
misnamed (by using the term "BSD" in its name). It is
not a BSD license because it does NOT always "permit
improvements to be used wherever they will help,
without idealogical or metallic constraint." For
example, it does not allow the use of such
Hope you can make the Squeak license GNU GPL
compatible. That will make Squeak useful to a lot of people.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http:/
Given the history of Free Software and Open Source
(that Open Source is a marketing name (Bruce Perens)
or marketing program (Eric Raymond) for Free
Software), can there be any question that a software
license the Free Software Foundation published is not
Open Source?
FSF may never seek OSI appro
Hope this license can be a model for the Apache
license to follow/emulate/envolve to. (Yes, Apache can
follow Zope)
> * Paul Everitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011121 16:41]:
> >
> > Hello to all. We at Zope Corporation have
> finished a final draft of a
> > major update to the Zope Public License:
involved.
=
Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED], +1 408 943 0287, +1 408 393 6370
Dept of ECE, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0407, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people! Develop!
Share! Enhance! Enjoy
30 matches
Mail list logo
