I sent the following in the past (see the Sept 2003 archive) and
never really got a reply. I figured I'ld try again with a slightly
reformated message.
=
Section 1
-
The Lucent Public License version 1.0 was approved in 2003.
Since then we've been using it to
I can answer it for the Lucent public license at least. We write
code for a living and would like to share as much of it as
possible with the outside, both because it makes us feel good
and because it increases the number of people making it better.
For that copy-center or copy-left would work.
If you say so. I understand that for the patent infringement (see lower
and above), but for damages, I think it is weird. I would expect the
party that made money of it to get sued, and possibly convicted, but
not the original authors that put the thing in the public domain.
Actually, that
Perhaps we should have OSD #5.1
All licenses must be politically correct. They must contain
nothing that might offend or incense anyone.
We would have to exempt all currently accepted licenses
since an inheritive clause (or prohibition or lack of one)
might incense people or
Proponents of open source software insist that software not be a
battleground on which political or philosophical or business wars are waged.
To a certain extent, an inheritive clause or prohibition against combination
with one is a political battleground. The GPL is indeed a soldier in a
I never said that the GPL doesn't promote software freedom.
Where did that come from? Nevertheless, it is a political statement (or
at least a philosophical one) as it is an attempt to influence
people into a different behaviour; a stronger statement
than the mere promotion of open source.
The LPL lets you redistribute with GPL if you want. You would
have to keep the copyright. Also, the distributor agrees to
indemnify the contributors against suits due to his actions,
which might scare some people off.
Distributing separately with both the LPL and the GPL is also possible.
Our
I can't see that it does anything in violation of the OSD. I like it better
than
my own in fact. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to get our lawyers to
allow
anything without an indemnity clause, termination clause, ...
In general, I don't like to see in such documents URL's or email addresses
On Mon Sep 29 17:20:36 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has
said ``if source of the program and any derivatives is distributed
under an inheritive license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed
under this license.'' Then
Section 1
-
The Lucent Public License version 1.0 was approved earlier this year.
Since then we've been using it to distribute Plan 9. As a result we've
gotten feedback from our users, IBM's council David Shofi (a CPL person),
and our own lawyers. Their comments have led us to make some
On Thu Sep 25 15:52:09 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that if I take BSD code, and link it with GPL code, and
distribute the result, the recipient is permitted to extract the BSD
code and make a proprietary fork of that. So the BSD license always
does permit proprietary forks of the
On Sun Sep 14 01:54:35 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is an example of Corba 'serverizing':
A GPL application is modified by a vendor of non-free software, who adds a
Corba server API to the application. The vendor releases the source code to
the GPL application and modifications
On Sun Jun 22 15:40:06 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ...I haven't seen this message appear on the list; resend... ]
Mark Rafn wrote:
It may not be pertinent to the licensor's need. I very much hope it is
pertinent to OSI's need to restrict use of it's service mark only to
13 matches
Mail list logo
