something inaccurate somewhere?
D
--
+-+-+
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Conan! What is best in life?" |
| Derek J. Balling | "To crush your enemies, see them|
| |drive
For the record, that would be the Free Software _Foundation_, wouldn't it?
He could come up with his own ideas and call his new organization the
Free Software Movement with (I would expect) very little legal
difficulty (aside from potential public backlash from potential
confusion with the
Something to keep in mind.
For a company, when it comes down to
1.) Pay nobody for advice and have your open-source license fall into
a black hole", or
2.) Pay nobody and have your staff lawyers who were going to be there
anyway draft up a nice closed-source license from all the
boiler-plate
At 5:05 PM -0400 8/7/00, John Cowan wrote:
There is a cost to keeping your patches under wraps, though, either out
of competitiveness or parsimony: you will have to reintegrate the patch
into the next release, and the next, and the next Very quickly
you get sick of this and make the patch
At 11:46 AM -0700 7/23/00, Rick Moen wrote:
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
No, I was just addressing the comment of "well, the disclaimer clause
is enough and it just requires judges ruling the correct way"
(paraphrased), to which I was indicating that what you and I consider
At 10:51 AM -0700 7/24/00, Rick Moen wrote:
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
You're saying "Trust The Courts"
I said no such thing.
However, your repeated and willful misreadings of my post were tiresome
the first time. Three times is thrice too many, and I have no time for
At 1:23 PM -0700 7/24/00, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Justin Wells wrote:
Refresher: what we're talking about is whether or not you can get away
with "do not use this software for life-safety systems" in an opensource
license (violating fields of endeavour) and if you don't
Wow... hadn't thought of that one yet. That's a VERY good point. I
certainly wouldn't want to get sued because some poor schmoe was
using my GPL'ed Perl scripts to monitor his aircraft engines or
something :-/
But the ramifications to that argument can be wide-reaching... that
means no
d to accidentally kill someone, and I'm not liable.
The issue here is NOT preventance of lawsuits -- that's impossible --
but removing the chance of SUCCESS of said lawsuit from causing
adverse effects on the programmer.
D
At 11:28 AM -0700 7/22/00, Rick Moen wrote:
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
At 2:47 PM -0700 7/22/00, Rick Moen wrote:
begin Derek J. Balling quotation:
The contention is, though, that in some jurisdictions, that disclaimer
is NOT valid and enforceable, whereas a "you may not use this in
condition, condition, condition types of situations" IS.
Yes,
At 07:18 PM 3/30/00 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Justin Wells wrote:
The consensus on the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has been
that you should draft a license which you think fits the definition
and simply start using it. If your software is important enough to
draw attention, then sooner
I hadn't seen mention of this here before (although I might have missed it).
Richard (I know you're out there) will be HAPPY to know that the Free
Software / Open Source mentality is spreading to other completely unrelated
industries.
Dungeons and Dragons will be "open source" of a sort, if
Government-written and government-contracted software is NOT Open Source,
but it IS Public Domain.
Knowing the differences is left as an exercise for the reader, but if you
want the source code, a FOIA request would probably turn it up for you in
short order.
D
At 10:17 AM 3/8/00 -0800,
At 10:52 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote:
Public domain and Open Source are not the same thing... No problem with
that. However, I've seen government agencies exercise their right to
copyright material (at least I assume it is their right because it is done
frequently).
It would be
At 04:13 PM 3/8/00 -0500, Rick B. Dietz wrote:
The issue to the IRS was not that it was competing with commercial
services, rather it was making interaction with an existing government
beaurocracy easier for citizens for nothing over the internet. Intuit was
saying, wait a second, we like this
Dual licensing makes perfect sense, it all depends on why you are licensing
your software.
I believe there's a discussion somewhere online as to the "whys and
wherefores" that Larry Wall chose to license Perl (for example) under
multiple licenses. (Where to find it is left as an exercise to
At 02:59 PM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
Actually I do not say that Linux is part of the GNU system. What I
say is that the GNU/Linux system is the combination of GNU and Linux.
It is the result of integrating Linux into the GNU system, but it
isn't precisely the GNU system. It is a
[cc's trimmed]
At 08:44 PM 10/15/99 -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
I think you can answer all your questions yourself. What you really
want to do at this point is compare Stallman to Hitler. That's the old
USENET secret code to let everyone know that rationality has left
the discussion, which would
At 12:46 PM 10/14/99 -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
Yeah -- the SunOS kernel isn't free, so why should it be considered a GNU
system? ...Whereas Linux (the kernel) *is* free, and is considered part of
the GNU system. I don't think it should always be called GNU/Linux, in the
case of, say,
At 01:26 PM 10/14/99 -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
I actually agree; I was attempting to clarify what seems to continue to be
unclear below.
Fine.
It is the GNU system running Solaris kernel, just as RMS's claim that
it is
the GNU system running the Linux kernel. We're not talking
At 03:43 PM 10/13/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
If I was to replace all of Solaris's utilities with the GNU
equivalents, would anybody call it GNU/Solaris?
I for one would not call it that. Copying just the utilities from GNU
is not enough of a reason to say "the result is
Maybe something like "cannot sell it for anything more than the cost of
media and transportation costs associated with that media" (e.g.,
CD/shipping, minimal charge to try and recoup the cost of a web
distribution system, etc.)
ObNote: IANAL, and I can't even impersonate one with the way I
License discuss is NOT a very precise meaning. Are we discussing licensing
issues in general? In specific? Is it a place for people who make licenses
to discuss their after-hours enjoyments? Is it where discussions are held,
but only if they're licensed first?
This very topic came up in the
[CC's trimmed tremendously]
I am not the list-owner, but I would have to say I would think they should be.
D
At 01:02 PM 9/21/99 +1000, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
G'day all.
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 07:24:10PM -0700, Derek J. Balling wrote:
I would vote for creating a new list, license-review
y not necessarily
care so much about the political aspect.
==========
Derek J. Balling | "Bill Gates is a monocle and a white
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| fluffy cat from being a villain in the
http://www.megacity.org/ | next Bond film." - Dennis Miller
==
Or alternatively, simply list another project so as not to confuse the
issue midstream. As Richard points out, the FSF doesn't want the terms
"Open Source" and "Free Software" lumped together. Rather than switching to
a different terminology mid-stream, it would make more sense to simply
1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA
This has got to be a joke...?
No. It is a circular road in Cupertino which, IIRC, surrounds one of
Apple's campuses. (or something like that).
The NAMING of the road was certainly a joke, but :)
D
The author of the GPL, as far as I can infer from his writings and talking to
him, does not believe that "alteration of a copyrighted work is a PRIVILEGE,
not a right", because he does not believe that software should have any owners
at all.
Without understanding that, you can't understand the
28 matches
Mail list logo
