"Stephen C. North" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not
> about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If
> you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy.
> Freedom i
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
> >>>if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
> >>
> >>The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
> >> software philosophy.>
> > Please read:
> >
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet
> > if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
>
> The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
> software philosophy.
Please read:
http://www.g
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> You said "provided free of charge."
> >>
> >> The GPL says "licensed free of charge."
> >>
> >> See the difference?
> > Not really, but duh to myself. I should know better. Maybe it will
> > come to me in my sleep. Thanks. (Myself)
>
> It didn'
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm only trying to add to that the requirement that a part of any
> generated revenue is payed to the authors (if they want). This should
> be completely orthogonal to the open source requirements, and hence
> unhurtful of them, but I'm having techn
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the
> >>>software.
> >>
> >>Then they should stop saying "because this software is provided free
> >>of charge..."
> > Neither license says that.
>
> Duh?
>
> "NO WARRANTY
>
> 11.
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is clear to me that OSD #6 does not prohibit direct sale of the
> > software. I've never heard anybody seriously claim otherwise.
>
> It's another thing. By clause 6, you must either sell to all
> recipients, or give away to all recipients. I
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the open source "way" requires public availability,
> technically, for bazaar-like development to take place. But I'll have
> to sleep on this.
Let's not confuse bazaar-like development with open source software.
Remember that "The Cathedra
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source
> > software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is
> > that what we are selling is not publically available except through us
> > (or our customers if they
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Again on words. It seems what you sell is not "open" after all,
> because you "have not contributed back yet". Your selling the
> future. That's a fine model, but again, what you sell, *when* you sell
> it, is not open.
Your first criticism was tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 1. [Ian] You sell your software which is BSD-licensed. Do you give out free or
> evaluation copies under a different license, or perhaps crippled binary
> versions? What kind of prices do you charge, so that we have some idea of the
> barrier individuals would have to s
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the 10th time someone is trying to say that you can sell open
> source software. Some people including myself sustain that you can't,
> in practice. (That is, you can charge, and even sell a couple of
> copies, but you'll be out of business
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "My employer sells commercial open source software.
> It fully complies with the OSD--in fact, it is under the BSD license."
>
> Do you really sell the software (not support, not buy-out)?
Yes, we sell the software. It comes with installation sup
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rick Moen (and others) suggest the term "open source" be used only as
> defined by OSI. Maybe that would be a good thing, and as I said and
> pointed out (and Rick wasn't listening) I never say just "open source"
> tout court to mean something diffe
"Guilherme C. Hazan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since i already misunderstood the concept of "open-source" (which does not
> only means source-code-available, but also requires-free-distribution), are
> there any other concepts behind "free software", except that they are free
> of charge?
Ope
"Guilherme C. Hazan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What we need to do to place the logo at our site? Just get it and put in the
> html?
The logo is trademarked by the Open Source Initiative. It may only be
used with their permission. The permission required is described
here:
http://opensou
Alex Rousskov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sources which may not be distributed are not open source. I
> > strongly suggest that you not use that term.
>
> ... on this mailing list which is OSI-specific and uses OSI-specific
> terminology.
I personally think it is to everyone's advantage if
"Guilherme C. Hazan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Really? I thought that open-source meaned that the guy can see and change
> the source, but not related to distribution. So, all OSI approved licenses
> state that the distribution is completely free?
No. All OSI approved licenses state that if
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt
> http://google.com/groups?threadm=YPep.5Y5.21%40gated-at.bofh.it
> (Read the entire thread -- this is real fun ;-) )
I am already quite familiar with this discussion.
In your initial
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> [...]
> > A number of people have argued that if the only implementation
> > of an API is under the GPL, and if the API is not independently
> > described, nor managed by a standards orga
"Tony Linde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How can writing to an API force you to conform to that product's license? If
> that was the case, a Java app running on Windows would be illegal and on
> Linux would have to be GPLed.
A number of people have argued that if the only implementation of an
A
Larry Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I currently work on an open source project that uses the GPL for a
> license. The project is written in PHP and uses modules/pluggins. The
> project has an API that other developers can use to create these
> modules/pluggins so they work within the fram
Chris F Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am not a lawyer. Moreover, your questions relate to the issue of
when one piece of software is a derivative work of another, which is
not clearly settled.
> If one has provided a version of readline that is not GPL, can one
> argue that the intent of t
Alex Rousskov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting
> > restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are
> > not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some
> > modifications, but they do it at redistribut
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> [...]
> > I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking
> > does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in
> > the link. ...
>
> With all those $$ leg
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The arguments that the GPL is invalid are totally bogus.
I need to qualify that by saying that I'm referring to the arguments
which have appeared recently on the license-discuss list.
There are other theories that the GPL, while v
Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to see the opensource.org criteria clarified on the web
> pages. It would help clear up some confusion. I suggested a few
> changes in an earlier post.
The criteria are here:
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
If you want t
Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Again, I understand that NASA's proposed license does not require
tracking, it merely encourages it. We are discussing tracking in the
abstract.
I could write a much longer response, but I'll try to stick to most
salient points. If you think that I
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Cowan wrote:
> [...]
> > Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers
> > break up and redistribute the individual object files into
> > different regions of the executable.
>
> Do you seriously believe that such details/"l
Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Specifically, I maintain that copyright and waivers are *not*
> determinants of an open source license, and I think it's improtant (if
> that's opensource.org criteria as well) to clearly state that. I
> would also suggest that as long as distributi
Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm just saying that a stance that NASA, a US government agency with
> "deep pockets", should remove imdenification wording is a haneous
> idea. And in general bashing the license on non-licensing issues
> doesn't do any good. It actually hurts ope
Richard Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting
> > requirements are viewed as unreasonable limitations on the rights of
> > licensees to do anything they want internally with open source
>
> Biggest problem of all here - who
BSD Protector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Daniel Carrera wrote:
>
> > Can we stop these posts already?
>
> With all due respect, this mailing list is called:
> "license-discuss".
However, that doesn't mean that it is a mailing list for discussing
all licenses, or the theory of licensing.
"Ann W. Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>As part of the Firebird open source database project, we created
> a close derivative of the Mozilla Public License V1.1 which we call
> the "Initial Developer's Public License."
...
> 1) Has an equivalent license been approved already? I read
"Zooko O'Whielacronx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Simple Permissive License is most similar to The MIT License. The MIT
> License does not suffice for my needs because it is too long and complex for the
> programmers that I work with to read.
Personally, I recommend that you tell your pr
For those who didn't see it on Slashdot, here is a good discussion of
open source/free software licenses, from Mark Webbink, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel of Red Hat. He is a lawyer, and this
article is written for lawyers, but is clear and straightforward.
http://www.groklaw.net/
Jan Dockx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why do organizations that release software under a permissive,
> non-copyleft license, use a license in the first place? What is the
> difference between BSD and public domain?
I've read elsewhere that it's actually not clear how to release code
in the publ
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem here is exactly that. Assignment is a double edged
> sword. Assignment makes it easier for one individual to litigate
> against people who violate the license (which means violating the
> copyright). But it also permits the assignee to change
Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I hadn't considered the issue of ownership of copyright for contributed
> code. Is it common for open source projects to stipulate that contributors
> either transfer copyright or agree to allow the owner to change the
> license?
It's fairly common, tho
Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > I think a better word here is ``sticky.'' The GPL is a sticky
> > license; once it is attached to code, it can't be removed. The BSD
> > license is not stick
Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I say 'viral' I do so without any prejudice
> whatsoever.
The word itself is somewhat prejudicial, though, as rather few people
have positive connotations for the word ``virus.''
I think a better word here is ``sticky.'' The GPL is a sticky
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 04:26 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > I'm concerned that this discussion is starting to chase a chimaera:
> > That
> > is, some BSD and ex-NeXT types started blitzing this mailing list with
> > fervent (but mistaken) co
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I believe that a license can be OSD-compliant without being
> > OSI-approved.
>
> Interesting. Is this because you believe that the OSD is incomplete
> and that it should disallow more licenses, or is this because you
> believe that OSI approval shoul
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> The OSD as written today is largely license-neutral, and it concerns
> >> me when people want to change the OSD to prefer some licenses over
> >> others.
> >
> > Who, for example? If those "people" aren't on the OSI Board (I'm not,
> > for example), t
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
>
> >§ 51(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and
> >equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion,
> >ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are
> >ent
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By this you mean that you do not see any particular problem with
> Sean's license "being incompatible with the GPL by it's own terms",
> and that you view his license as being OSD-compliant?
Very few people thought that Sean's license was not OSD-complia
Bobbi Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are quite comfortable with hosting companies taking this free code and
> offering it to the web designers/developers that are hosting with them.
> However, we would like those designers/developers to see an attribution to
> our company.
>
> So my q
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are
> > > changes that are available only under the GPL.
> >
> > Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a proprietary
> > product are changes that are only available t
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD
> > code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously
> > say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing.
>
> Changes made to the BSD code by the au
Ernie Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a
> alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the
> GPL. That is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per
> se, and more concerned about the -community- be
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by
> likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or
> as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to
> be able to do! That's a smart business f
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Businesses who create
> commercial, redistributed products, use (indeed prefer) BSD/MIT
> licensed software.
It would be nice if you could stop using the words ``business'' and
``commercial'' when you really mean ``businesses which use proprietary
sof
Mike Wattier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well..there are those within the "community" to which the GPL is a hindrance,
> plain and simple.
Sure, I know that. (I've been in the open source business for 13
years now; I really do know something about it. And I do mean
business literally, as it'
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your arguments about businesses don't make any sense to me since
> > there are certainly a number of businesses happily making money from
> > GPL software. Here is what my version of what I think you are
> > doing.
>
> Some, not all. Just to keep
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If the bits are OSSAL, a business can trust on the OSSAL bits always
> > > being OSSAL.
> >
> > This would be automatically true by default operation of copyright
> > law, with or without OSSAL clause 6. To reiterate: Licences over
> > other code
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to
> create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most
> likely open and available to the public.
The same is true of software under the BSD license.
Ian
--
licens
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I won't comment on what other people have already commented on.
> Let me clarify some vocabulary:
>
> people = home user or developer of applications out side of a
> commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of
> software.
>
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not concerned about freedom of development to users/consumers
> (which is the aim of the GPL), I'm concerned about the freedom of
> development for businesses.
Your terminology is strange to somebody like me, who worked for many
years at a busine
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The OSSAL is the most similar to the BSD license. This is a
> derivative license in that it is modeled after the BSD license,
> however it prevents code or objects from being used by GPL'ed bits.
> The reason for these addions being that as a language
Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not your license (made by you).
>
> How can you submit other people's license for
> approval?
I don't see anything wrong with doing this. What is your concern?
Ian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Tony Butterfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My motivation is in finding an open-source model for software that
> promotes all the well known and discussed aims of open source but that
> allows a small independent startup to create a revenue stream.
>
> I am working on a provocative short paper
"Iain Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A proprietary vendor could create non-free software that functionally would
> amount to a derived work, without actually making a derived work within the
> meaning of copyright law. Would this break the spirit of the GPL while
> complying with its terms,
"Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Will it be better if you take out the word "perpetual" and
> > add another section on duration of license something like this:
> >
> > 16. Duration. This license shall be in force until
> > the expiration of copyright in original wor
"Don Jarrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I offer as
> an alternative thinking approach is "not yet soup"; it
> is just what I have been discussing with a few licensing
> buddies.
I have a different alternative: use an existing OSI approved license.
If you can't use an existing licen
"Miller, Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have searched and searched online for an explanation to this question, so
> if I have missed a faq that details this please accept my apology and point
> me in the right direction.
Well, there's this, if it helps:
http://zooko.com/license_quick_
Erik Ostermueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm planning on releasing an open-source product,
> probably under the GNU license.
>
> Must I do anything in particular to insure that I can
> safely/legally violate the terms of the license PRIOR
> to the product release?
Assuming that you hold t
Mitchell Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The goals are to be a broadly adopted, high-quality PIM on all
> platforms, and to ensure that Chandler is always available on an open
> source basis to those who want it. We also hope to generate a piece
> of the funding that will be necessary to mak
Mitchell Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Open Source Applications Foundation (http://www.osafoundation.org)
> is planning the 0.1 release of Chandler (a personal information
> manager) shortly, hopefully by the end of April. OSAF's plan of
> record for licensing is to follow the model use
David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 13 March 2003 09:32 am, Gunther Schadow wrote:
>
> > - The problem of the BSD license is that it allows commercial
> >parties to take the source code away and contribute little, and
> >take away the freedom of their customers to use
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Think clearly. The GPL does not claim ownership of your work. It
> > merely puts conditions on distributing your work combined with GPL
> > work. The question you are raising is whether #including a GPL header
> > file means that your work has been
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However - the issue is not talking about .exe or .com files, but
> pluggin objects using the well known and publish API of the Linux Kernel.
Why do you keep harping on this particular issue? Is anybody telling
you that you can not distribute your L
"PETERSON,SCOTT K \(HP-USA,ex1\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "The only issue is whether G+H is a derived work of G, and that seems
> obvious."
>
> I think there is an additional issue, and one for which the resolution is
> not necessarily obvious: to what sort of combinations of G and H does t
"PETERSON,SCOTT K \(HP-USA,ex1\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assume that there is a standard API defined in a spec.
> One author writes an application G that conforms to that spec (using the
> API; I think of this as sitting on top of the API) and offers this under the
> GPL.
> A second author
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If one was to go through the pain of creating a set of headers from
> scratch that happen to behave just like the one is the kernel snapshot
> they are referrencing, as a manual to the API. This obviously is
> extracting the ideas in :
>
> ./linux-{sna
"Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So what if "most of the Linux kernel is loadable modules?" Probably
> Linux is not a derivative work of those loadable modules, but instead a
> compilation or collective work. The GPL doesn't require you to publish
> the source code of either of
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > 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 cut both ways here?
>
"Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you don't create "a work based upon one or more preexisting works"
> then you have simply not created a derivative work. 17 U.S.C. §101.
> How in the world does an independently-written piece of software that
> communicates with another indepen
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > One of the questions about "Derivative Work" as it relates to binary
> > > only loadable objects, is the creation of a boundary layer of execution.
> > > Specifically, the design and publishing an API which properly glues into
> > > an open source gp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> One of the questions about "Derivative Work" as it relates to binary
> only loadable objects, is the creation of a boundary layer of execution.
> Specifically, the design and publishing an API which properly glues into
> an open source gpl program or kernel(ie loadable
"Ken Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GPL advocates want the GPL to become the king of all free software licenses.
> And if wants to be the king, it will have to go through the fire of legal
> review in a court.
Not really. The GPL relies more on public opinion than it does on the
force of l
"Ken Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lets deal with this one at a time. My first question is this-who does the
> code belong to once it is GPL'ed? What entity, person, group, troll,
> whoever owns the code?
It belongs to the copyright holder.
I've written free software myself. I own the
"Ken Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is particularly precarious when the GPL itself says that there is
> unmitigated circulation of the work which is completely opposite of the
> basic definition of copyright. If you cannot control distribution or
> modification, you do not have "copyri
"Ken Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The inherent standard in court for copyright is ownership and control. The
> GPL negates your individual permissions. In addition, you revoke all rights
> to control distribution. Sure you can say that there is a copyright, but to
> me its like claiming
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source
> Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are
> allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from
> you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged!
Per
Emiliano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > > I am totally uneducated in the matters of license legalities, but is it
> > > actually illegal to circumvent a license? If the wording of the license
> > > allows a particular use, will the court read the letter of the licen
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Stallman writes:
> > It would be wrong to require publication of modified versions
> > that are used privately, but inviting the public to use a server
> > is not private use.
>
> I'm not sure that the GPL-using community is going to agree
John Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone know if there is a sort of "socially responsible" open source
> license (a la socially responsible mutual funds)?
I've never heard of one (unless you count licenses which prohibit
``commercial use'').
Given the nature of the software busine
David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > People should be able to understand the OSD. Sigh. This all turned out to
> > be a lot more complicated than we were thinking back in 1997.
>
> By and large, I think most people DO understand the OSD. Where we have
> problems is understanding the cr
Rui Miguel Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > whether the GPL is appropriate to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or some
> > other more appropriate mailing list?
>
> Disagreed.
> This is license-discuss.
> GNU GPL is an OSI recognized license (in fact, the first in the list in
> the website)
I agree that
DeBug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I took a look at http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
> and read this:
>
> "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
> False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly
>puts
> it in the public domain(*). E
DeBug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My question is what are the restrictions in lesser GPL ?
> In other words what is the difference between
> a) I write software and give it away for free without copyrighting it
> b) I write software copyright it and issue it under lesser GPL
The restrictions i
Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> on 24/9/01 2:15 pm, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > Rob Myers wrote:
> >
> >> I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of
> >> making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as
> >> th
It's common practice to quote part of the e-mail to which you are
replying, as I am doing here, in order to maintain some context in the
conversation.
It is also polite to set your mailer to not send HTML mail to a
mailing list such as this one.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Many thanks for seein
Daniel MD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The result is that forking in GPLd projects is rare, and
> > reconcilliation has been known to happen. The Alan Cox (ac) Linux
> > kernel series is a persistant, but narrow, fork of Linus's own
> > development. emacs/xemacs is probably t
Greg Herlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Of course. He just can't [*] call his license either (IMHO) Open Source
> > or Free.
>
> Perhaps not Free. Why not open source? You can read, modify,
> and redistribute the source. The only caveat is that you have to
> send the author a copy of th
Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I can't imagine how anyone could claim that using or reading the
> > libiberty demangler test suite would cause your program to violate the
> > GPL.
>
> Sure, but looking at the source code of the demangler would, perhaps.
No, it wouldn't. The GPL is
Angelo Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The GPL and LGPL are arguable the oldest "free" or "open" licenses.
> Slighly followed or even older, by MIT/BDS licenses.
There was free software out there before the GPL. Arguably that
software typically didn't have a coherent license. I just to
Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7 Jun 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > Thus, I submit that either qmail's license be approved as an
> > > OSD-conformant license, or OSI consider whether clause #4 needs, er,
> > > "clarification&
Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ESR and I exchanged some private email on the subject of Darren Reed's
> "clarification" of his terms on the ipfilter code to deny the distribution
> of modified derived works; he pointed out that clause 4 of the OSD states:
>
>4. The license ma
"Carter Bullard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Here is the thread.
Ah. There really aren't any arguments there, just concerns. I
suggest that you simply reply as James suggests, pointing out that a
nearly identical license was accepted by the OSI, and see what reply
you get to that.
Ian
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
