From: Steve Lhomme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > Abe Kornelius wrote, in part:
> >
> >>It was intended that "Distributor" designate anyone who redistributes
> >>the Software, with or without stuff of his/her own. This would include
> >>the Copyright Holder.
> >>A "Cont
Dear all,
With Nathan Kelley I have had a discussion, that has
halfway turned private, i.e. we both forgot to cc the
list. Since Nathan agreed with me that it would be a
good idea to let you all in on the discussion, I have
made a surmise of the various mails that have not
yet been on this list,
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Abe Kornelius wrote, in part:
>
>>It was intended that "Distributor" designate anyone who redistributes
>>the Software, with or without stuff of his/her own. This would include
>>the Copyright Holder.
>>A "Contributor" was intended to designate anyone who either
Abe Kornelius wrote, in part:
>
> It was intended that "Distributor" designate anyone who redistributes
> the Software, with or without stuff of his/her own. This would include
> the Copyright Holder.
> A "Contributor" was intended to designate anyone who either
> redistributes the Software, wit
And yet another one. I have been most inattentive.
I'll go stand in the corner...
Abe F. Kornelis.
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Also, as written, I think this definition includes
> > > compilers and linkers (and more! run-time ld? ) as
> > > Source code.
> >
> > ld
And yet another that should have been cc-ed to the list.
Shame on me, isn't it? Once again I apologize.
Abe F. Kornelis.
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > The definition of "User" is too broad. It allows any
> > > Distributor to force someone to be a "User" simply by
> >
This one did not go to the list either.
Another resend with apologies.
Abe F. Kornelis.
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [Discussion of Paragraph 6]
>
> > > The "even if such marks are included" is a problem when you also
> > > require (in a separate paragraph) verbatim dist
I just noticed I sent this reply without cc-ing the mailing list :-(
Therefore now resending with apologies.
Abe F. Kornelis.
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The definition (at General #2) is as follows, and is formatted
> thusly:
> Contributor:
> Any Distribut
To OSI License Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> From: Nathan Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> From: "Abe Kornelis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> I have read the Bixoft Public License (proposal version). I believe
>> that it is consistent with the Open Source Definition, and meets the
>> requirements
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Steve Lhomme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
>
>
>>A Contributor can be (or not) a Distributor.
>>A Distributor can be (or not) a Contributor.
>>That's what the definitions say.
>
>
> The definition (at General #2) is as follows, and is formatted
> thusly
> > Also, as written, I think this definition includes
> > compilers and linkers (and more! run-time ld? ) as
> > Source code.
>
> ld is not a Source file.
The BXAPL says
"Source Code" is "... and any other files or members needed to
create the executables required to properly execute th
> > The definition of "User" is too broad. It allows any
> > Distributor to force someone to be a "User" simply by
> > sending them a copy.
>
> But does it arm any part of the license ? Or just a personal feeling ?
>
8.5 seems to have an effect for "Users" 15 may also.
16 also, but 16 is ha
[Discussion of Paragraph 6]
> > The "even if such marks are included" is a problem when you also
> > require (in a separate paragraph) verbatim distribution of the
> > software. I read that as "when there is any trademark in the
> > software, you are not permitted to distribute."
> --> In my opi
Steve Lhomme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in part:
> A Contributor can be (or not) a Distributor.
> A Distributor can be (or not) a Contributor.
> That's what the definitions say.
The definition (at General #2) is as follows, and is formatted
thusly:
Contributor:
Any Distributor and
- Original Message -
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Approval request for BXAPL
> This is a very complicated license. Thanks for provid
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: OSI License Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Abe Kornelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Steve Lhomme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Approval request for BXAPL
>
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> This is a very complicated license. Thanks for providing
> the remarks and annotations. Very nice.
Yeah. We tried to simplify as possible. But lawyer language is not
common language. Anyway it seems that you found some bad ones. (none of
Abe or me are lawyers
This is a very complicated license. Thanks for providing
the remarks and annotations. Very nice.
After a quick read, I think that it should not be OSI approved,
for numerous reasons, some follow.
Because the license is so complicated, it is not clear
to me that addressing the following points
> Item 16: I could be completely wrong here, but a) seems to effectively
> create a situation where patent holders would pay others for use of
> their own patents, while all third parties would be allowed to continue
> infringement - with the only alternative being to withdraw the claim. Is
>
To OSI License Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> subscribers,
> From: Abe Kornelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Dear members of this license discussion list and
> dear members of the OSI board,
>
> We (Abe Kornelis of B.V. Bixoft with support from Steve Lhomme of
> Mukoli)
> would have preferred to use
Dear members of this license discussion list and
dear members of the OSI board,
We (Abe Kornelis of B.V. Bixoft with support from Steve Lhomme of Mukoli)
would have preferred to use an existing OSI-approved license, or a copy of
one with only slight modifications. Unfortunately none of the licens
21 matches
Mail list logo
