This will appear to be an extremely pedantic email, but it arises from a
discussion with a corporate lawyer who I believe was genuinely confused by
some of the wording in the Open Source Definition.
The discussion focussed around the intent of clause 1, Free Redistribution,
in particular "The lic
Richard Boulton scripsit:
> We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
> list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license
> to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?"
The answer is clearly "no".
> If the answer is no, I hum
AIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 6:11 AM
To: Richard Boulton
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wording in Open Source Definition
Richard Boulton scripsit:
> We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
> list: "Is it permissible in any circum
> From: Richard Boulton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
> list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license
> to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?"
[DJW:]
The GPL
On Friday 16 February 2001 01:49 am, Richard Boulton wrote:
> The discussion focussed around the intent of clause 1, Free Redistribution,
> in particular "The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
> sale."
As a child, when your lawyer's mother told him that he "may not have a c
John Cowan writes:
> Richard Boulton scripsit:
>
> > We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
> > list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license
> > to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?"
>
> The answer is clearly "
6 matches
Mail list logo
