D]]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 4:54 PM
To: 'Lou Grinzo'; 'John Cowan'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source
> -Original Message-
> From: Lou Grinzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> But the more impor
Thanks, guys. I didn't mean to get off on a tangent with the pancakes and
blue socks thing.
But the more important issues, I think, is what's up with MS and this "in
conjunction with" phrasing. I can't believe that MS's lawyers don't realize
how vague that statement is, which makes it sound sus
This is bordering on the bizarre, IMO. I bet the lawyers will have a field
day deciding what "in conjunction with" means. (On the same disk?
Dynamically linked? Statically linked? In the same archive, even if it's
unrelated software? From the same ftp directory?)
In more general terms I'm al
When you get it, pls. post the information to the list, if you can do so
legally and without ruffling too many feathers. Should make for some
interesting reading.
Take care,
Lou
-Original Message-
From: Laura Majerus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:41 PM
To:
29, 2001 3:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
Lou Grinzo wrote:
> I've contended for a long time that the primary problem with open/free
> licenses is that they're not specific enough.
My experience (as a lawyer) with open/free licen
Original Message-
From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
"Lou Grinzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My solution is for some group of people (like us) to
I'm sure I'm going to get beat up for suggesting this (as happens every time
I offer the idea, it seems), but what the heck...
I've contended for a long time that the primary problem with open/free
licenses is that they're not specific enough. Look at this conversation
thread that's been running
company in question.
Take care,
Lou Grinzo
Editor, LinuxProgramming.com
--
Angelo Schneider write:
Manfred Schmid wrote:
>
Hi all!
[...]
>
> "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
> Our General Public Licen
7;re losing our perspective. It's time for everyone
involved to take a deep breath, step back from the keyboard, and think about
something non-work related for a few minutes.
Take care,
Lou Grinzo
Editor, LinuxProgramming.com
-Original Message-
From: dan [mailto:dan]On Behalf Of Dan H
;m drifting off topic here.
If this is OSI's stance on this licensing issue, then it's their decision
and I respect it. I'll shut up now, and go back to waiting for the license
I submitted (Open Compatibility License) to be discussed.
Take care,
Lou Grinzo
Editor, LinuxProgramming.com
license to the entity that holds the
copyright to the material, unless specifically asked for advice.
Take care,
Lou Grinzo
Editor, LinuxProgramming.com
at you'd even
call something like this. (Although "Sun Community License" leaps to
mind... )
Take care,
Lou Grinzo
Editor, LinuxProgramming.com
ftware.
And no, I don't have a solution to this situation, either, or I'd be an
absurdly rich man, as Russell suggested.
Take care,
Lou Grinzo
Editor, LinuxProgramming.com
-Original Message-
From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 11:30
This latest exchange points out one of the most troubling aspects of
software licensing--even many of the people who care about such
issues and closely read the licenses can't always agree on exactly what
is and isn't allowed.
In this case, I think it would help everyone a great deal if the FSF
14 matches
Mail list logo
