On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 07:51:15AM -0500, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
[...]
He explained the difference using the example of a museum
open to the public. Any member of the public has a "right"
to enter the museum. But they still have to pay the admission fee.
I would have said that,
At 01:23 AM 3/31/01 -0800, Chris Sloan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 07:51:15AM -0500, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
[...]
He explained the difference using the example of a museum
open to the public. Any member of the public has a "right"
to enter the museum. But they still have to pay
On Saturday, 31 March 2001 11:32 PM, Carol A. Kunze wrote:
- Stepping away from a technical interpretation of the OSD,
- the requirement
- of a license fee seems inconsistent because it jeopardizes
- the primary
- byproduct resulting from the open source model of developing and
-
on Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 11:40:35AM -0800, Laura Majerus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
In the case of Open Source licenses, however, this stuff is
too new for
there to be
Corel had two recent GPL conflicts. First, they held a "private" beta that
wasn't that private. Nothing much came of this one. The beta ended and all
the source was publicly available.
Second, they wrote a (pre-GPL) Qt front end to Debian apt-get. In this case,
the original author gave Corel
Randy Kramer wrote:
The approved Open Source licenses have been approved on the basis that
we (the OSF or whatever) believe the terms of the approved licenses
achieve the objectives stated above."
After a little more thought, maybe I'd want to rephrase the preceding
more like:
The approved
"Smith, Devin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lou Grinzo wrote:
I've contended for a long time that the primary problem with open/free
licenses is that they're not specific enough.
My experience (as a lawyer) with open/free licenses is that many of them
are
not properly drafted. The GNU GPL is
1 11:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
...
In the case of Open Source licenses, however, this stuff is
too new for
there to be any value in simply sticking with bad language.
I did a search
of Lexis recently and coul
Laura Majerus writes:
I'm collecting information on gpl disputes that have been settled amicably
(or at least settled out of court). "Plenty of companies" is a bit vague.
Pointers anyone?
You should ask Professor Eben Moglen.
http://old.law.columbia.edu/
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
I'm collecting information on gpl disputes that have been settled amicably
(or at least settled out of court). "Plenty of companies" is a bit vague.
Pointers anyone?
Laura Majerus
-Original Message-
Eric Jacobs scripsit:
Indeed, if the execution of a software program is not an
exclusive right of the copyright holder, then all shareware concepts
(with or without source) are faced with a problem -- how to get the
user to execute the license at all. Considering that most shareware users
Eric Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But whether or not shareware-with-source can be practically or legally
enforced is not my main point. My main point is that OSD #7 cannot be
sensibly construed as a criterion that a requirement-to-pay be waived
for users to whom the software is
On 28 Mar 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I myself am uncertain, which is why I would be happier if the OSD had
an explicit statement that a recipient of a program was permitted to
run it.
That seems a good idea.
Also, OSD #1 says that you can redistribute "as a component
of an aggregate
On 28 Mar 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
the recipient is permitted to run the program. The last time this was
discussed, Russ Nelson (who is on the OSI board) said this:
| If you have legally received a copy of a program (and
| OSD #1 guarantees the right of the person giving you a copy
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Eric Jacobs wrote:
Plainly, this is not what #7 means.
OK, what does #7 mean?
--
* Phil Hunt *
"An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your silly
little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation of a
paperclip to look at
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, David Johnson wrote:
On Thursday March 29 2001 03:25 am, Eric Jacobs wrote:
It is this sort of illogical argument that will prevent this issue from
ever coming to rest. Let me offer an analogy.
I did manage to pass logic in college. However, I don't always do so
"Lou Grinzo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My solution is for some group of people (like us) to collectively assemble a
list of every permutation of activity we can think of involving
software--sell it modified/unmodified with/without source, linked/not linked
with non-free/open SW, bundled/not
h bad language. I did a search
of Lexis recently and could not find a single case interpreting the GNU GPL
or the Mozilla GL.
Devin Smith
-Original Message-
From: Randy Kramer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Subsc
al Message-
From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
"Lou Grinzo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My solution is for some group of people (like us) to collectively assem
OTECTED]
Subject: RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
Lou Grinzo wrote:
I've contended for a long time that the primary problem with open/free
licenses is that they're not specific enough.
My experience (as a lawyer) with open/free licenses is that many of them are
not properly d
I'm sorry if someone has already said this, or something similar, but
why can't people who want to distribute source, as they say, but keep a
financial gain from it, use conditions like:
1) On paying the license fee, you have access to the source code - you
may not distribute it in whole or in
"Smith, Devin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GNU GPL is particularly difficult to interpret,
probably because it was written by a non-lawyer.
The GPL was extensively reviewed by the FSF lawyers.
I personally have always found the GPL to be clear.
The main problem I've seen people have with
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Smith, Devin wrote:
My experience (as a lawyer) with open/free licenses is that many of them are
not properly drafted. The GNU GPL is particularly difficult to interpret,
probably because it was written by a non-lawyer. The resulting legal
uncertainty makes it very
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, SamBC wrote:
I'm sorry if someone has already said this, or something similar, but
why can't people who want to distribute source, as they say, but keep a
financial gain from it, use conditions like:
1) On paying the license fee, you have access to the source code - you
On Thursday March 29 2001 12:51 pm, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
There was also another point of contention. Apparently in
German the idea of "right to do something" is not the same
as "permission to do something." (It was very difficult to
determine that it was this difference which was
Replying to several posts, sorry if this is confusing:
Phil Hunt wrote:
Or does #7 only apply to usage *other than* copying? If so, does this mean
that if someone illegally encapsulates my GPL'd code then they can still
legally run my program?
As I understand it, the GPL does not restrict
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 8:57 AM, Seth David Schoen wrote:
- Some people think that copyright law doesn't actually allow you to
- prevent people who have a legal copy of the software from using it in
- any way they like.
In other words does transferring the software to another person also
On Wednesday March 28 2001 08:27 am, David Davies wrote:
One key point of the argument is the
"In the United States, once you own a copy of a program, you can back it
up, compile it, run it, and even modify it as necessary, without permission
from the copyright holder."
The key point being
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 8:45 AM, David Johnson wrote
- The OSD is an attempt to formally define Free Software (*).
- It was never
- meant, I believe, to be a list of restrictions on licenses.
Because of the well known ambiguity between Free (Beer) and Free (Speech) It
would seem this
If you really want registration fees from all users, then why not just keep
your software closed source?
Because "Open Source" and "Free Software" are ideologies. And a lot I
know think, its right to incluse the source code. But its not right to
get no fees from those who use the
On Wednesday March 28 2001 09:07 am, David Davies wrote:
Is there a secondary purpose to also ensure that the software can be
obtained and used without payment?
It's pretty clear that the software can be used without payment. The only
fees allowable are for the purposes of obtaining it.
--
On Wednesday March 28 2001 12:27 pm, Angelo Schneider wrote:
If you really want registration fees from all users, then why not just
keep your software closed source?
Also its a bit pathetic to say: "Yeah, he gives you also the source, but
that is not Open Source. He should make it closed
Title: RE: Subscription/Service Fees
Gentle people,
I hate to jump in the middle, sorry for the distraction.
IMHO, what you describe is not open source or free
software, but rather you can't buy this software.
Carter
Carter Bullard
QoSient, LLC
300 E. 56th Street, Suite 18K
New
Title: RE: Subscription/Service Fees
Hey Dave,
Hmmm, I did think that we were talking about licenses,
but lets correct the statement.
I hate to jump in the middle, sorry for the distraction.
IMHO, what you describe is not open source or free
software, but rather you can't buy
Angelo Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think this mailing list would run much better if people here would try
to understand that ther is still demand to ordinyry sell software. Not
everynody is in the habit of living from Consulting contracts etc.
I think most people on this list
On Thursday, 29 March 2001 4:35 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
- What we do say is something which I think is very simple: open source
- has a meaning. It is probably true that it is harder to make money
- producing software that is open source than it is producing software
- which is not open
begin David Davies quotation:
That's a great point that everyone can respect. But who decides what
the definition of Open Source is ?
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html does, because:
1. It's the only clear yardstick we have, and
2. The OSI got there first.
If you want a concept that
On Thursday March 29 2001 03:25 am, Eric Jacobs wrote:
It is this sort of illogical argument that will prevent this issue from
ever coming to rest. Let me offer an analogy.
I did manage to pass logic in college. However, I don't always do so well in
English. Let me restate what I meant:
Eric Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It may certainly be possible to have a registration fee for Open Source
software. I am not denying that. However, until such a time as the
registration fee is paid, the software cannot be considered Open Source.
David Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It may or may not be the case that a clause obliging a user to pay a license
fee would make a license non-compliant with the OSD.
Well, I kind of think it would. But the way to test that is to
propose a license which requires a license fee, and to try
Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
) It may certainly be possible to have a [requirement that derivative
works
) be licensed under the GPL] for Open Source software. I am not
denying
) that. However, until such a time as the [requirement that derivative
) works be licensed under
On Thursday March 29 2001 05:35 am, Eric Jacobs wrote:
My statement that Bob has all the rights which Andy has but does not
have the requirement of distributing under the GPL is derived from
David Johnson's argument about OSD #7 -- namely, that a recipient of
Open Source software gains all
On Tuesday March 27 2001 08:16 am, David Davies wrote:
It appears that the Open Source definition would not specifically limit a
license from requiring users to pay a subscription fee or month service fee
for using the software. Perhaps I am missing something?
You can charge your customers
on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 06:09:03PM +0900, David Davies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 9:44 AM, David Johnson wrote
On Tuesday March 27 2001 08:16 am, David Davies wrote:
It appears that the Open Source definition would not specifically
limit a license from
"Karsten M. Self" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Netscape was able to actively sell into those corporations in a very
interesting manner. "Since you already have our products and the
license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us."
Support this statement with a citation and/or
"Karsten M. Self" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it
clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software
you are required to pay $x to xyz inc.
Nope.
Violates #7: "The rights attached to the program must apply
David Davies writes:
Maybe I don't get some key part.
I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it clearly
stated in the license that if you continue to use the software you are
required to pay $x to xyz inc.
There is no way to stop user A giving it to user B,
On Tuesday March 27 2001 09:09 am, David Davies wrote:
Maybe I don't get some key part.
I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it
clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software you
are required to pay $x to xyz inc.
There's one key element
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 7:25 AM, Karsten M. Self wrote:
-Netscape was able to actively sell into those
- corporations in a very
-interesting manner. "Since you already have our
- products and the
-license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us."
-
- Support
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 7:36 AM, Eric Jacobs wrote :
- Violates #7: "The rights attached to the program must
- apply to all to
- whom the program is redistributed without the need for
- execution of an
- additional license by those parties".
-
-
On Wednesday March 28 2001 03:51 am, David Davies wrote:
I can see no reason why a clause can not be added to the license that
states;
" x.1 If you continue to use this software or any derived work after a
thirty (30) day evaluation period you are required to register it.
x.2
To allow the user to improve the software for themselves to suit there
environments.
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2001 5:36 AM
To: David Davies; 'Eric Jacobs'; License-Discuss (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Subscription/Service Fees
On Wednesday March 28 2001 04:48 am, Robert Kolzan wrote:
To allow the user to improve the software for themselves to suit there
environments.
But you can do that without the software being Open Source. You do not need
the approval of the OSI in order to make your source code available.
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 6:20 AM, David Johnson wrote
- To allow the user to improve the software for themselves
- to suit there
- environments.
-
- But you can do that without the software being Open Source.
- You do not need
- the approval of the OSI in order to make your source
On Wednesday March 28 2001 07:28 am, David Davies wrote:
So back to one of the questions in my original e-mail
"Is this a practice that is intended to be prohibited?"
[under the OSD]
I would say that registration fees are intended to be prohibited.
If so why isn't there a more specific
55 matches
Mail list logo
