Hi,
I'm the author of a PHP-based webmail client called IlohaMail
(http://ilohamail.org) currently released under the GPL, and am
considering offering my software under a license that would maintain its
free (as in speech) nature but not necessarily be free (as in beer) in
certain circumstances.
Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:
Hi,
I'm the author of a PHP-based webmail client called IlohaMail
(http://ilohamail.org) currently released under the GPL, and am
considering offering my software under a license that would maintain its
free (as in speech) nature but not necessarily be free (as in beer) in
ce
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
2) For-profit organizations may re-distribute the software, however if
they charge more than a reasonable "distribution" fee, they must pay
royalties to the project.
free as in speech? Not only individual are free to speech. Why you
discriminate
organizations?
Sur
On 7/16/2003, "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2) For-profit organizations may re-distribute the software, however if
>> they charge more than a reasonable "distribution" fee, they must pay
>> royalties to the project.
>
>free as in speech? Not only individual are free to s
On 7/16/2003, "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>>
>>> 2) For-profit organizations may re-distribute the software, however if
>>> they charge more than a reasonable "distribution" fee, they must pay
>>> royalties to the project.
>>
>>[...]
>> Su
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:
> On 7/16/2003, "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 2) For-profit organizations may re-distribute the software, however if
> >> they charge more than a reasonable "distribution" fee, they must pay
> >> royalties to the project.
> >
> >fr
office
www.digitalthinkinginc.com 972 467 6793mobile
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Rafn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:26 AM
> To: Ryo Chijiiwa
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re
"Don Jarrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I offer as
> an alternative thinking approach is "not yet soup"; it
> is just what I have been discussing with a few licensing
> buddies.
I have a different alternative: use an existing OSI approved license.
If you can't use an existing licen
(Ryo, sorry if you receive this twice.)
Quoting Ryo Chijiiwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm the author of a PHP-based webmail client called IlohaMail
> (http://ilohamail.org) currently released under the GPL, and am
> considering offering my software under a license that would maintain its
> free (as
Thanks for all your comments. I see that my initial proposal did not fit
the Open Source Definition as outlined by OSI. I apologize for my lack
of research in that regard.
I have since reassessed my needs, and here is a revised proposal.
Would it be possible to have a license identical to the
Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL,
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
?
--- Ryo Chijiiwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have since reassessed my needs, and here is a
> revised proposal.
>
> Would it be possible to have a license identical to
> the GPL, except one
> which has provisions f
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:
>
> Would it be possible to have a license identical to the GPL, except one
> which has provisions for deployment of software, rather than the
> distribution of binary executables?
It would be possible to have such a license. I would object to it on the
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andy Tai wrote:
> Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL,
>
> http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
I don't see this on the opensource.org list, and I hope not to. Debian has
expressed objections to this license as well.
IMO, this is not a free software license.
--
Mark Rafn
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
> My strong recommendation: Ignore antisocial users (whether they be
> individuals or corporations). The community has it's own strengths, the
> vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation. Trying to
> make software less useful in order to pro
On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
>distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
one of the basic requirements in th
Mark Rafn scripsit:
> This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the heading "ASP
> loophole". One interesting question is where to draw the line between use
> and "deployment". This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP that
> includes open-source code. Do I have the right to that
Pardon me but, how does a statement like this
> Trying to make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or
>brand is misguided.
Promote and encourage the diversity and co-operation encourgaged in
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fiel
John Cowan wrote:
[ ... ]
Am I obliged to publish all changes that I make to any OSS which I use
in my business? Presumably not; the right to make private changes
is protected by (AFAIK) all open-source licenses including the GPL.
Deploying software in an ASP is not IMHO essentially different; it
On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andy Tai wrote:
>
>> Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL,
>>
>> http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
>
>I don't see this on the opensource.org list, and I hope not to. Debian has
>expressed objections to this license as we
What, do our opinions need to be OSD-conformant now, too?
Besides, anyone who knows where I'm coming from knows I have no dislike
for revenue or branding.
/me re-lurks
Brian
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mike Wattier wrote:
> Pardon me but, how does a statement like this
>
> > Trying to make so
Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:
> On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
> >distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
>
> Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
>
> What, do our opinions need to be OSD-conformant now, too?
hehe.. No, not at all, it was simply an honest question as I am trying to
learn. If I don't ask, I cant learn right?
On Wednesday 16 July 2003 2:52 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> What, do our opinions need to be OSD-conformant now, too?
On 7/16/2003, "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:
>
>> On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
>> >distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
>>
>> Perhaps my i
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
> Would anyone care to comment on the licensing found here:
>
> http://www.backplane.com/licensing.html
The examples here make it pretty clear what the rules are. But in general
the concept of "corporate non-commercial use" is bogus. Excluding
not-for-profit corporations
Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:
> Their FAQ (http://www.affero.org/oagf.html) mentions that the license
> "should" be compatible with GPL 3.0, and may be used as a replacement.
The FSF is still thinking about issuing a third version of the GPL, but it
has not yet done so, and may never do so.
--
"In my
> On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
> >distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:
> Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought
On 7/16/2003, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Server software like web servers and mail servers don't have interfaces
>> for end users because that's not the intended audience.
>
>Of course they are. End users use the http and smtp interfaces of such
>servers every day. The
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: license idea (revised)
>
>
> Mark Rafn scripsit:
>
> > This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the
> heading "ASP
> > loophole". One interesting question is where to draw the
> line between
>
Rosen
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:31 PM
>> To: Mark Rafn
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: license idea (revised)
>>
>>
>> Mark Rafn scripsit:
>>
29 matches
Mail list logo
