tware under this than you
would under a pure BSD license, but again, it's your call.
Please, if you want your work to be freely transformable into
proprietary work, just use the BSD license.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
strongly recommend people NOT add "or any later version" to their
GPL work, and I'm glad the Linux kernel folk agree.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
[sending only to list, assuming interested parties are subscribed.]
> > >Mark Rafn wrote:
> > >>Fundamentally, if the client is open-source, it can be
> > >>modified, and the
> > >>modified version can LIE and say it's the original version.
&
at would be quite a trick.
[snip a lot of words, which don't really address any problem that I can
see.]
Fundamentally, if the client is open-source, it can be modified, and the
modified version can LIE and say it's the original version. Anything
which prevents this is not open-sourc
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andy Tai wrote:
> Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL,
>
> http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I don't see this on the opensource.org list, and I hope not to. Debian has
expressed objections to this license as well.
IMO, this is not a free software license
vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation. Trying to
make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or brand is
misguided.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
er this: $50 for a corporation is nothing, but for me, that's 1-2
> weeks' worth of food. At the end of the day, if they don't think the
> software's even worth that much, they really shouldn't be using it
> anyway.
Fair enough. Of course, if you fe
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Chuck Swiger 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&
; of the RSPL has been removed from the proposed license.
This, I agree with. Even more so since the latest draft includes a clause
that allows it to be released under near-GPL terms.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
#x27;s service mark only to
software which can be freely modified.
I may be in the minority here, but I'm rather surprised to find this to be
the case.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
ftware library" becomes tricky, and
it's unclear whether it can be forked to become a Mozilla plugin, for
example.
Would code that allowed modification only if the result was "A Microsoft
Windows Application" be considered open source? That allows most
modifications to
of an open-source license, remove the permissive bits,
and expect the result to be considered open-source.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
n can be considered open
source.
I know they're straight from the LGPL, but they are irrelevant there
because the LGPL is a pure superset of the GPL (see LGPL section 3),
unlike the license under discussion.
Yes, this indicates that I think the LGPL without section 3 would
be non-open-source.
--
M
hank you, I think this is a good change. 2a and 2d remain, however,
and I believe make this a non-open-source license. They prevent the code
being made into anything that is not a software library.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is a
would it take anything from you?
> It doesn't restrain your freedom. It's no different from the GPL that
> makes you give out your code if you link your proprietary (closed) code
> with a GPL library (not LGPL).
Aside from the fact that that would be an unlikely remedy for most GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]" are assumed to be
intended for inclusion in the main program, and by submitting such a
change you assign the copyright to RPI.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
2a and 2e are objectionable in that they severly restrict the scope of
allowable changes. 2d is very annoying, but I don't know if OSI has
declared such a demand as unacceptible.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Christophe Dupre wrote:
> Hello,
> my employer is considering releasing some components as open
e right to
sell my work as a condition of modifying the software.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
must honor the
requirements of the GPL.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
source, public domain meets
all of the OSD, and is considered free by Debian.
That said, I understand the reluctance to step into the quagmire about
whether an author can or should disclaim copyright. Is there any harm to
not listing it as approved even when it's clearly free (to the extent
he first GPL violation (putting non-GPL-compatible code
in the Linux kernel).
>- Would anything be different if the AFL were more compatible with
> the GPL?
At least the first case would - it would be allowed to distribute a linux
kernel which included AFL-licensed code.
> I&#x
e a derivative work of both W and X, whether it be by
linking, copying parts of code, or whatnot. WX is not distributable by
anyone, as it cannot meet both the GPL and the AFL.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
kind. Neither of these
> parties would ever sue each other. After all, they're both into free
> software!
Very very wrong. The GPL licensor specifically chose the GPL and is
often very picky about people distributing derived works under
non-GPL-compatible conditions.
IANAL, TINLA
original author) being aware of it.
You're not compelled to write nor distribute open source software. But if
you want the benefits of doing so, you must do so fully.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.dagon.net/>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
; Is a must-supply (to copyright holder, that is) clause
> preferable over a must-publish (to the public, that is)
> clause, or vice versa.
Neither qualify as acceptible in my book. I'd be interested to hear
from OSI board members whether this is an area where &quo
t can (or not, sometimes) lead to better bug reports,
patches, and suggestions for the product.
But it's not for everyone, and certainly not for all software. If you
intend to sell the software itself (rather than selling support, add-ons,
or other services related to it), you probably want to
d on WebFoo (c) 1999 Foo Inc. http://www.foo.com
This would be no different than the requirement that interactive programs
display GNU copyright when the output format isn't a necessary part of the
program. Of course, it _IS_ an extra few dozen bytes with each request,
and it's going to annoy some people.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.halcyon.com/dagon/> !G
ess time bickering about license-of-the-week and more time creating
and using the software.
I'm of the opinion that license interoperability among different packages
is nearly as important as technical interoperabity. One way to achieve
this is to standardize licenses like we [try to] st
28 matches
Mail list logo
