On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Danese Cooper wrote:
Second, I might agree with you about the role of OSI in certifying licenses
which are essentially OEM'd from "approved" licenses...but OSI would
disagree with you me. Sun was required to submit our version of the
Mozilla Public License (our Sun
Adam,
Sorry to take so long to answer you, but I've been travelling in Europe for
the last 2 weeks with uncertain connectivitiy and I typically punt on my
mail list emails until I get home...but Sun is very interested in having
people use the SISSL (because we think its a really good license).
At 1:52 AM -0800 12/14/00, Danese Cooper wrote:
Adam,
Sorry to take so long to answer you, but I've been travelling in Europe for
the last 2 weeks with uncertain connectivitiy and I typically punt on my
mail list emails until I get home...but Sun is very interested in having
people use the SISSL
Hey folks,
Down to the nitty gritty. It's looking like we're going to want to
use the Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.1 (SISSL) for XNS.
It's pretty generic throughout except for the following:
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html
Sun Industry Standards Source
"Adam C. Engst" wrote:
6.2 Effect of New Versions.
Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of
the License, You may always continue to use it under the terms of
that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under
the terms of any subsequent version of
At 6:13 PM -0800 11/28/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's been part of my argument with Larry Rosen WRT the Jabber License. While
I agree with him in being able to move beyond the current state of art
in licensing, rather than being stuck with static terms dictated by
another party, I still have
on Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:24:27AM -0800, Adam C. Engst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At 6:13 PM -0800 11/28/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's been part of my argument with Larry Rosen WRT the Jabber License. While
I agree with him in being able to move beyond the current state of art
in
On Wednesday 29 November 2000 07:24 am, Adam C. Engst wrote:
Fortunately, the practice appears to be fading somewhat, and projects
which have adopted distinctive licenses are either fading or adopting
one of the emergent standards (GPL, BSD/MIT, or MozPL).
From this, it would seem that
Hey folks,
A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license to
avoid the proliferation of yet more open source licenses, how do you
deal with the fact that many of the open source licenses have
specific language that doesn't make sense if used by any product
other than what
The MPL is due for a revision before long. I'd like to make the revised
version as neutral as possible for just this reason.
mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:25:56PM -0800, Adam C. Engst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hey folks,
A quick question. If you want to
At 1:01 PM -0800 11/28/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license to
avoid the proliferation of yet more open source licenses, how do you
deal with the fact that many of the open source licenses have
specific language that doesn't make
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 02:36:53PM -0800, Mitchell Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:25:56PM -0800, Adam C. Engst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hey folks,
A quick question. If you want to adopt an OSI-certified license to
avoid the
12 matches
Mail list logo
