- Original Message -
From: "Russell Nelson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Johnson writes:
"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". The license could
possibly be
construed as discriminating against fields of endeavor. The APSL
places
restrictions upon commercial usage that it
begin Russell Nelson quotation:
My own personal interpretation, disclaimernot to be confused with
the entire board's interpretation/disclaimer, is that not
unrelated restrictions should be allowed.
[formatting mine]
It's okay for an open source license to not license a company's
Hello,
Just to clarify. The APSL 1.2 actually makes an *exception* for Private
Use (as well as internal RD); i.e. Private Use is not considered a
"Deployment" and therefore such use is exempt from the requirements
attached to Covered Code that is Deployed.
From the APSL 1.2 d
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, David Johnson wrote:
On Thursday April 05 2001 04:02 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
Is there a pressing need or interest for private use to be disclosed?
Apple wants it in there, and there's nothing in the Open Source
Definition that allows us to require them to remove
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, David Johnson wrote:
I would definitely try to get Stallman's approval. So far, all Open Source
licenses are also Free Software licenses(*). It would be sad if the APSL was
the one to fall through the crack between the definitions.
[...]
(*) The Artistic License might
We are trying to encourage companies who deploy APSL software to share
their modifications with the broader community. Typically, companies
will adapt software to meet the broader needs of people across their
organization. An example is the use of our Streaming Server software,
where
on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:27:38PM +0200, Toon Knapen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
David Johnson wrote:
I would definitely try to get Stallman's approval. So far, all Open Source
licenses are also Free Software licenses(*). It would be sad if the APSL was
the one to fall through the crack
begin phil hunt quotation:
Two question that spring to mind:
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would they want to not disclose it?
Assuming that this question was not *purely* rhetorical:
There are many people who are NOT on the Internet OR in
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Nick Moffitt wrote:
begin phil hunt quotation:
Two question that spring to mind:
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would they want to not disclose it?
Assuming that this question was not *purely* rhetorical:
Not at all.
I wrote:
Two question that spring to mind:
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would they want to not disclose it?
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would Apple mind them not disclosing it?
On Thu, 5 Apr
On Thursday April 05 2001 05:20 pm, Ron Dumont wrote:
Hello,
Just to clarify. The APSL 1.2 actually makes an *exception* for Private
Use (as well as internal RD); i.e. Private Use is not considered a
"Deployment" and therefore such use is exempt from the requirements
attached
On Thursday April 05 2001 12:03 pm, phil hunt wrote:
If someone is using internally a modification of APSL software, why
would they want to not disclose it?
Two reasons spring to mind. 1) the modifications may contain proprietary
information, trade secrets, and internal matters that are
Please review the APSL 1.2. It's at http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/ .
We're aware that Richard Stallman believes that a free software
license should not require disclosure of private use; no need to tell
us of that.
--
-russ nelson will be speaking at http://www.osdn.com/conferences
Russell Nelson scripsit:
Please review the APSL 1.2. It's at http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/ .
Looks open-source to me. As is well known, IANAL.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
On Thursday April 05 2001 02:39 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
Please review the APSL 1.2. It's at http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/
.
We're aware that Richard Stallman believes that a free software
license should not require disclosure of private use; no need to tell
us of that.
I would
David Johnson writes:
I would definitely try to get Stallman's approval.
We did. Stallman is not a monomaniac. Some things are more important
to him than the amount of freely copyable software. One of these is
the freedom not to disclose things you have done privately.
Is there a
On Thursday April 05 2001 04:02 am, Russell Nelson wrote:
Is there a pressing need or interest for private use to be disclosed?
Apple wants it in there, and there's nothing in the Open Source
Definition that allows us to require them to remove it.
cynicism
Apple sues Mom-and-Pop Shop for
17 matches
Mail list logo
