Mark Rafn wrote:
[ ... ]
Does OSD #3 mean that "The license must allow [ALL] modifications and derived
works, ...", without any restrictions?
IMO, pretty much yes.
Hmm. I agree that users of open source software generally should have the right
to fork and distribute modifications of software, e
David Presotto wrote:
[ ... ]
I understand where someone wouldn't want their code destroyed, perverted,
whatever. However, broken or malicious is a bit of a judgement call, is
it not? I have a hard time seeing where the line would be drawn.
I agree with you that it's hard to draw the line exactly
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's service mark only to
> > software whic
On Sun Jun 22 15:40:06 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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's service mark only to
>
[ ...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's service mark only to
software which can be freely modified.
Does OSD #3 mean that "The license
5 matches
Mail list logo
