say I need to paint my cat red and that
is what I choose to accept then bad luck for the cat.
The key point is +ACI-choose to accept+ACI- i.e. I do or I don't and I am not
forced to accept it. Nobody is holding a gun to my head or a paintbrush
over the cat.
Regards,
David Davies
http://
me space for stalls is often owned by someone who
rents it to the merchants. Perhaps the "owners" were merchants themselves
when the bazaar was a free-for-all an managed to hold and expand their prime
position, this is the nature of enterprise.
The owners of space do make money but they
OSI really) dictate what is understood by the term Open
Source.
It may or may not be the case that a clause obliging a user to pay a license
fee would make a license non-compliant with the OSD.
Regards,
David Davies
on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 6:14 PM, David Johnson wrote:
-> It's pretty clear that the software can be used without
-> payment. The only
-> fees allowable are for the purposes of obtaining it.
Where is it made clear ?
The only clear statements I have seen to date appear to be personal
viewpo
and clarify what "Open Source" is accepted to
mean.
It is good that there is a forum for such discussion but if the issue has
been raised before then doesn't it suggest that this should be clarified in
the OSD?
Regards,
David Davies
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 8:57 AM, Seth David Schoen wrote:
-> Some people think that copyright law doesn't actually allow you to
-> prevent people who have a legal copy of the software from using it in
-> any way they like.
In other words does transferring the software to another person also
ded to
clarify that that is the intention of whichever clause has the effect of
limiting this action.
It has been suggested that clause 1. Free Redistribution or clause 7.
Distribution of License would limit such a license being accepted but
neither is specific or entirely clear in that regard.
Regards,
David Davies
stop the limitations
being imposed on the use of source code or program by way of a separate
license.
Requiring a registration fee does not "close up" in that sense.
Regards,
David Davies
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 7:25 AM, Karsten M. Self wrote:
-> > > > Netscape was able to actively sell into those
-> corporations in a very
-> > > > interesting manner. "Since you already have our
-> products and the
-> > > > license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us."
-> >
On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 9:44 AM, David Johnson wrote
->
-> On Tuesday March 27 2001 08:16 am, David Davies wrote:
-> > It appears that the Open Source definition would not
-> specifically limit a
-> > license from requiring users to pay a subscription fee or
-> mo
new life as Open Source without completely giving up the license based
revenue stream.
Software licensed in this way isn't the ideal (we all want everything to be
free right?) but its surely one better than contributing to the Bill Gates
personal development fund.
Regards,
David Davies
11 matches
Mail list logo
