on Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 06:32:07AM -0800, Carol A. Kunze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 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
Karsten M. Self scripsit:
> My own experience in this light was with Microsoft's Unix Services for
> Windows NT. Several GNU utilities were included in binary format w/o
> sources or other GPL section 3 requirements. A note to Doug Miller
> (Microsoft VP of product marketing, former CEO of Inte
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 p
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
>
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
-> distr
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
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, pre
: '[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
> -Origi
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 P
March 30, 2001 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
"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. Th
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
> of litigation brewing over the Y2K exclusions that insurance companies
> hastily issued before 1/1/00.)
>
> 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
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 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 w
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 ver
"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 wi
29, 2001 3:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 licen
Original 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
ny value in simply sticking with 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 PROTE
David Johnson wrote:
>
> > --
> > Von: David Johnson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. März 2001 22:56:46
> > An: Eric Jacobs; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Betreff: Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
> > Diese Nach
"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
some details only after we've
> all had a chance to think about it for some time, but in the long run
> wouldn't that be far better than perpetuating all this confusion?
>
> Take care,
> Lou
>
> -Original Message-
> From: phil hunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
&g
far better than perpetuating all this confusion?
Take care,
Lou
-Original Message-
From: phil hunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, David Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday
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 d
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 a
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 co
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
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 redis
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
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 al
Eric Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 of the rights
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 lic
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
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:
So
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.
> If a
> registration fee were allowed
On Thursday March 29 2001 02:05 am, David Davies wrote:
> on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 6:14 PM, David Johnson wrote:
>
> -> It's pretty clear that the software can be used without
> -> payment. The only
> -> fees allowable are for the purposes of obtaining it.
>
> Where is it made clear ?
The OSD
on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 6:14 PM, David Johnson wrote:
-> It's pretty clear that the software can be used without
-> payment. The only
-> fees allowable are for the purposes of obtaining it.
Where is it made clear ?
The only clear statements I have seen to date appear to be personal
viewpo
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, 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
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 specif
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 so
42 matches
Mail list logo
